negatives of a free market.
LOL, I think you are the one who needs reality check dude.
Think again. What I just described is the end product of a free market. In a free market, the people with the money make the rules. The corporations of the world are the people with the money, so they will always make the rules, and their rules include controlling the government. The end result of unhindered capitalism is the people at the top owning and controlling everything, including governments.
I guess you just can't see that your belief system is one of perpetual blame shifting for its many short comings. You can simply keep blaming all these short comings on the market not being free enoug. This is what Friedman did when doing economic consulting for post-coup Chile - he continued telling them to make the market more free until the country was ran right into the ground. Because a 100% free market (as you define it) will never exist, like Friedman, you'll never have to face the music that your belief system simply doesn't work as you think it does in the real world.
I find it amusing that you tell us to get educated in basic economics and then proceed to fail to understand what a corporation is, something that a person with an understanding of basic economics should have.
A corporation is not, despite what left-statists would have you think, a large company. There are many things that distinguish it from a regular large company, not in the least including limited liability (supplied by the government) and many protections.
And I could fly if I could fly... but I can't fly so I can't fly. No multi-billion dollar mega-corporation is on a level playing field with Joe Shmoe making $30k/year.
You are right, especially when the GOVERNMENT provides aforementioned corporations with benefits, kickbacks, subsidies and protections. Joe Shmoe is going to have a hard time beating a multi billion dollar corporation that gets HIS money because the government decided it needed a bailout.
And why were the governments fucking the people? Were they doing it for the lulz?
Because a government lives off of the sweat and blood of its subjects, like a particularly large mosquito or a slave master. If a government is not taking money by force and using it to sustain the individuals within, it has ceased to be a government and has evolved into a private defense organization.
Government is the collective bargaining power of the common man. The trick is to keep is strong and focused enough that it cannot be controlled by corporations and those with money. Castrating it or removing it all together is simply removing the only power the common man has, that of organization and unity.
ARISE YE WORKERS THROW OFF YOUR CHAINS
The government represents the common man? I see you are bringing up the rhetoric of such illustrious nations as the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and the various Fascists of the 1930s and 40s.
Government represents those in power. Usually they strongly defend a handful of the elite in the private sector and ensure that those elite remain powerful through market manipulation and coercion against innovative rivals. That would be the standard model in the US and Europe, and it happens to be the Fascist economic system. Some countries cut out the middleman and actually DO try to represent themselves and the people directly and alone. That idea creates hellholes like Red China, the USSR, Cuba, Allende's Chile, and North Korea.
There is a delusional person in this thread, and it isn't the one claiming that letting people make their own decisions without a gun to their head works.