The problem is markets were not allowed to be unrestrained. Liberals used to accuse banks of "redlining" (Research the Community Redevelopment Act). Political Correctness won. Banks were basically put into a half-nelson and forced to provide loans to lower income and/or undesirable credit applicants that should've been renting. Free markets work. They don't need to be restrained or needlessly controlled. When they are, that's when things go to hell, like they have. Protection from fraud, of course is a different issue.
Florida is a fucked up place. At 6 the bars are packed for Happy Hour. By 8 they're empty until midnight. I've got a freind in town who wants to "check out places"-I'm less than enthused. I'm already on my 5th El Presidente'. This is why the white stuff used to come in handy. Here's an article that will dispel much of your Exxon specific argument. http://seekingalpha.com/article/887...pital-and-exploration-spending-in-perspective
"In Europe, some political leaders, including conservatives like President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, have declared the death of laissez-faire economics." HeraldTribune Let France take that route, let's not do the same. What would be some appropriate restraints?
I think that goes without saying. Again, what would be appropriate restraints to place on a Free Market, other than restraints that keep Free Markets from depriving people of their life, liberty or property through either force or fraud?
No, it didn't obviously, because it happened. No one was deprived of life due to melamine in food, that anyone can actually prove. It increased risk of kidney stones, but that's not "life" and no one can really be 100% sure that it was the cause. So your philosophy that someone needs to be deprived of "life" or "property" is wafer thin.