A company's interests may not lie in free market expansion and competition, but the beauty of a free market is that you can vote with your pocket book every time you go to the store. Don't like Walmart? Stop funding them, run campaigns to educate people about other low-cost options, introduce some competition in their space. You can't do that with politics (except maybe campaigning).
Here's the problem with that Brizz, it only works if there is indeed a free market in place, the only reason you can vote with your wallet and buy the cheaper alternative is because it exists, there is a competitor who not only makes a similar product but also sells it cheaper, and thus a free market where you as a consumer can choose.
But it doesen't have to be that way, by no means! Let me give you real-life example:
Less than a decade ago here in Denmark, all the Opticians where engaging in Price-Fixing, and if anyone doesen't know what that means, it's when rival companies meet up, and decide to not compete, to all keep their prices nearly identical, so they can be kept artificially high, ensuring that they will all profit greatly, afterall, the consumer has no alternative, the prices are all the same, so if they need the product they will have to buy it at thease inflated prices, and will probably buy it in the store nearest to them, there's no reason going to the competition afterall, they have the same prices, so all the stores involved should see plenty of buisness too.
And me beeing nearsighted, i really had no choice, i need glasses to see, so i had to fork over absurd amounts of money for a pair of glasses, and there was nobody who was offering a better deal!
Price-Fixing is illegal, it's against the free market, and thus there exists rules and regulations to prevent it, due to lack of evidence however, the Opticians in this country where able to run this scam for a very long time, and a lot of people suffered financially for it, but thankfully, it's been delt with now, and there once again exists healthy competition in this market, which means i can see without beeing bled dry, a pair of glasses now costs less than a third of what they did back then, and i have free-market competition to thank for that.
But this is the point, the private sector has no vested interest in a free market and competition, they will make much more money if they have monopolies or price-fixing arrangements instead, thats where their personal best interest lies, and that goes for all of them, they all profit more if they do this sort of thing.
The only thing keeping them in competition is the fact that it has been made illegal for them to do price-fixing, or otherwise circumvent the idea of the free market.
Thus, in the real world, the free market is a paradox, technically it's not 100% free because the Government has to regulate and police it, but on the flipside, if they didn't, then the private sector would elleminate competition, because they have no interest in competition, it goes directly against their primary goal and reason for existing, to make a profit.
And with no competition, there is no alternative and no free market, no choice, your wallet's vote means nothing! What good is protesting the prices at Wallmart if all the other outlets have the exact same prices? It would be futile..
The idea that the market will regulate itself is a pipedream, it wont, it's not self-sustainable because it goes directly against human nature, why would companies
choose to compete when it is the exact opposite of what would make them the bigger profit? They woulden't, obviously, and they didn't, which is precisely why the Government had to go and invent laws against things like price-fixing in the first place!
Seems like you may have contradicted your own point a little.
