Yeah there is an obvious immediate test here for whether Bezos is sincere about this new direction. An opinion section aggressively advocating for free trade should be able to find plenty of reasons to criticize the new administration. I'm pretty skeptical that's what will happen though.

The actual original meaning (and the one that still makes sense) of free markets was “free from economic rent” as sections of the economy were monopolies granted by the king.

Those free markets really did benefit the people and the country. And they were compatible with taxes and tariffs.

Bezos is using the corrupted modern meaning, “free to charge economic rent” because he wants amazon to capture a greater share of global economic activity

I agree with you about the term's original usage, but I don't think that is the modern meaning.

Usage varies, but most commonly "free market" refers to an economy that is not centrally planned. All economies have at least some level of central planning, as well as at least some degree of economic freedom for participants, so the term is somewhat like the usage of "right" and "left" in politics, where it just indicates which side of a center line someone or something falls. Any market on the free-er side of the "center" can be described as a "free market."

So it has basically just become an antonym of socialism. I don't think it necessarily implies anything about a tacit approval of rent seeking in the economy.

I take your point, and that (i think you would agree) loose anti-socialism definition you explained is a big part of it. But i think the subtext in modern usage is also “the right to operate a private toll on the economy” especially when its Bezos advocating it.

You think the current editor resigned because Bezos was asking them to criticize tariffs? Like every other major publication, and WPo has done before?

He's trying to get them to stop promoting socialism/statism.

according to what Trump says (i have not researched it myself) the US in the recent past has paid tariffs many times over what it has charged in tariffs, and he wants to equalize the playing field. So yes, imposing tariffs is a regression away from free markets, but if what he says about foreign tariffs is true, it already wasn't a free market for trade.

Tariffs are paid by the people buying and selling, to the state imposing the tariff.

a falling tide lowers all boats

> So yes, imposing tariffs is a regression away from free markets, but if what he says about foreign tariffs is true, it already wasn't a free market for trade.

Except that in Trump 1.0, he signed a free trade deal with MX and CA and said:

> The USMCA is the largest, most significant, modern, and balanced trade agreement in history.

* https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/pr...

But now it's a bad deal:

* https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-usmca-nafta-tariffs-can...

and wants to impose 25% tariffs on MX and CA—in violation of the free trade deal that he signed.