That's not what was said. The line of comments was "free markets are not under attack" followed by "From this perspective, they are." There was no judgement passed. I don't find your response curious or otherwise insightful.

US on average has higher tariffs than the EU, which the USA wants to apply even higher tariffs on

David Attenborough voice:

And here we see the modern conservative in his natural habitat. Notice that when any idea challenges his world view he will instinctually react with a defense mechanism known as the whataboutism.

The US often talks about wanting free markets: but it uses some pretty big sticks too negotiate with and has some fairly hefty demands to get value for the US. The Trans Pacific agreement was pretty ugly as a New Zealander. In particular was the 'Disney' copyright extensions. The US uses it's economic power to increase is economic power, while inviting other countries to sell their low value farming goods cheaply to the US.

And it's not like they are respecting the intention of NAFTA - what's an agreement worth if the US can unilaterally decide to hack around their agreements.

The only reason that prescription meds are advertised in New Zealand (US and NZ are the only countries in the world that allow direct to consumer pharma marketing) was because the US strong-armed it into a trade agreement.

According to two medical professionals from the Department of Public Health and General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand and writing in theBMJ

Industry funded patient information and the slippery slope to New Zealand

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2001072/

  In New Zealand and the US, the only two developed countries that allow direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicines, opposition has grown steadily from both the public and doctors. New Zealand's health system is much closer to those in Europe than the US system. So what can we learn from its experience?

  Rise of advertising

  Unlike most other developed countries, New Zealand never enacted pre-emptive legislation to prevent direct to consumer advertising.

  The adverts started appearing in the early 1990s, and steadily increased.

  But the US Food and Drugs Administration relaxation of regulatory requirements for broadcast advertising in 1997, unleashed an explosion in both the US and New Zealand.

  Last year drug companies spent over $5bn (£2.5bn; €3.6bn) on direct to consumer advertising in the US and tens of millions of dollars in New Zealand.

It was as much absence of barriers to entry as it was a strong armed entry.

I definitely misremembered, then.

But looking now I'm also seeing "due to heavy lobbying by the pharma industry, including the US pharmaceutical companies" as to why it hasn't been shut down. But I stand corrected.

No drama, I honestly had no idea, it was thanks to your comment that I looked it up at all.

It sparked curiousity.

Now I'm thankful Australia had laws in place ahead of any pharma drama.

The US doesn't have a trade agreement with NZ.

Can you cite this claim?

Wow - I always wondered why our good lefty country had those. Personally I find those adverts disgusting even though I'm business friendly and respect some of the outputs of pharma.

Though that is decidedly a pro-free market philosophy.

Not to mention the total lack of regard for the rule of law, a previous strong point for companies doing business in the US