The free market, like the social contract, is a model or metaphor for events that never take place. So, the former—operating under the principle of supply-and-demand—is imagined to explain the transactional agreement between buyer and seller for each good and service.

A recent My View (“An open letter to Rep. Josh Riley,” River Reporter, June 11-17) somewhat overstates the prevalence of this activity in driving the U.S. economy. While most consumer goods/services may be viewed under this rubric, probably one quarter of economic activity is generated by the various levels of government. 

Additionally, some of the market-based activity is heavily regulated. Public policy—e.g., withdrawing from the funding of subsidized housing—has had devastating impact. Sixty years ago, the private housing market, even in a place like NYC, was affordable because of the competition from public housing. The writer notes some exceptions to the dominance of supply/demand, one being the Hormuz Strait closure, interfering with “prices [which] are determined automatically.” But those more likely responsible for pain at the pump could be avatars for the concept of supply and demand: those gamblers in petroleum futures who have never had to “Gojo” the West Texas Light from under their nails.

Michele P. Brown
New York, NY