... went to market. Yada, yada, yada.
In THIS country, the 'market' would be partially regulated with an effort at totally free and unregulated. Heh.
The Republicans favor a market that is unfettered by government regulation, the theory being that "Free" markets are self-regulating and stronger than a regulated market can be.
Democrats, on the other hand, favor strong regulation of markets and the financial institutions which support them and grow out of their existence - the theory being that regulated markets are more stable than unregulated 'free' markets.
Although the truth lies somewhere in between, each position has its merits - and its adherents.
This country practices Capitalism - what this country fails to understand is that there is no direct connection between Politics and the state of markets - neither depends on the other, and yet the political process is allowed to be directly connected to the state of Markets.
Example: China. A single party political system practicing Communism. In recent years, however, the political system has disconnected from the economic system and the Chinese economy has seen tremendous growth after the government took a "hands off" approach, freeing up the markets and allowing entrepreneurial effort to succeed. The markets are, however, regulated closely, so as to assure stability and minimize corruption.
Regulation of markets does not smack of "Socialism", as the propagandists of the far right would have us believe. Regulations stabilize and control markets, minimize corruption and make the markets fair for more people.