Totally agree. “Free market” usually means that the big guys can do whatever they want to do including suppressing competition. “Competitive market”, “Functioning markets” or “fair markets” would be much better goals.

We should especially work on reducing information asymmetry. Big examples are salary negotiation and US healthcare. There we have parties (employers, hospitals, insurances ) that have almost all information and then the employees/patients that have almost no information. The old rule is that whoever has the least information in a negotiation will lose.

Basically agree, but what we're increasingly facing in the US is growing barriers to entry to compete with behemoths in the form of an increasingly complex tax and regulatory structure which just isn't compatible with free market principles still applying to how those behemoths treat employees.

In short, we have quasi state-sanctioned hegemons that have undue negotiating power.

There are two solutions: nerf the barriers or buff the workers through more targeted regulation. There's no single regulatory body that can do the former, so the only option left is the latter.

Totally agree. If the problem under consideration is "corporate behemoths", then this is just nibbling at the edges. Which is better than nothing, but we can/should do much more.

But, if the problem is the much smaller/simpler "remove barriers to job changes", this is a pretty significant change in policy. Not as significant as divorcing medical coverage from employment, but still pretty big.

> perfect information symmetry

FTFY. I believe that is what you meant to see or

> perfect, no information asymmetry