> Abolish patents as these simply limit free market competition and are a ploy to try to claim ownership on something that usually is one tiny fragment of human knowledge.

Think this one through, what’s the incentive to invent or make a thing of there’s no protection? Because someone wants to?

A common bit of knowledge here on HN is that "Ideas are worthless, execution is everything". Most ideas do not occur to just one person at a time... typically dozens of people and groups are working on the next incremental advance in human knowledge. Patents are awarded to whoever has the most aggressive lawyers, not necessarily who actually had the idea first. Beyond that, most innovation is funded by government grants and universities and should be public domain, not some professors property. And most importantly - patents stop all new further innovation, especially when a company owns many patents in an area. Why do you think there is only 2 airplane companies - Boeing and Airbus? They own all the patents you would need to start a competitor.

Great, so then require a parent to be actioned upon. And patents don’t last forever so eventually Boeing and Airbus will have, in great detail, explained how their thing worked so others can copy it.

those sounds like good ideas but they make markets less free.

So why call it free market?

How is “bankruptcy without bailouts” making markets less free ?

Which "bailouts" are you referring to? The 2008 crisis, where the "bailouts" were actually loans, which were repaid with interest, providing profits for the taxpayer, or the current COVID bailouts, which provide the people with money, not needing repaid, that look like they're adding significantly to inflation?

They were bailouts, because, without Fed's guarantees, no financial institution would loan money to most of these badly-managed, reckless corps. And they are doing the exact same thing again, knowing they will be bailed out again.

"Profits for the taxpayer" - did you get a penny of the "profits"? The only people who profited were the executives of the bailed out companies - who deserved to lose their jobs, not double their wealth.

> reckless corps

Can you explain how they were rekless?

If i go to cassino and bet my life saving on black that's rekless. If I go to cassino and bet your life savings then 50% of times I am genius investor, or 50% of times i am really really sorry for your loss.

The problem is that those corporations are playing a game they cannot loose. Its only logical for them to push risk (therefore profits) more and more. They themselves created 'too big to fail' term.

I am not trying to make excuses for them, they are the people who captured regulatory institutions, and de-facto are self regulating - and in practice we all know where that leads. They are responsible for what happened and is happening.

Good list!

I would also..

- allow government to compete on the free market.

- allow government to force-purchase static businesses that are profitable but not innovating.

- require government to monitor such port folio and privatize where innovation is failing. Privatization of this kind should not be rushed and aim to get good value for the assets.

- print money against the new government assets minus earnings from privatization

> allow government to compete on the free market

So then we should disallow government from regulating the market? There is a conflict of interest in your conjecture.

Government has to make money some how. While it is good to extract wealth from people with deep pockets I believe profiting from transactions though taxation for the most part is discouraging economic activity.

I and many other people have a laundry list of skills that I could offer to others only if I fill out piles of paper work.

If little jimmy wants to wash 1 car he needs to register a business and get the business bank account?

If big Joe has 100 car washes and he is earning a stable income without expanding or innovating to much government could make a bid on it and offer him a job.

If say the US gov wants to force-purchase the google search engine it should pay handsomely for it. Say 1800 billion. Alphabet would do just fine bidding on the advertisement slots and selling them to their customers. (Such a large purchase should probably involve a referendum)

It is our government. If we want it to sell beer in town hall it should be up to us. If you and many others are against it it obviously shouldn't happen.