“The free market is a myth. The garden is real. And the only true gardener is love.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that the only true market is a garden, and the only real currency is love.

I. Introduction: The Most Successful Fairy Tale of Our Time

The “free market” is not a law of nature. It is not a scientific discovery. It is not even particularly good economics.

It is a story.

A story told by the powerful to justify their power. A story that has been taught as truth in universities, preached as gospel in boardrooms, and enforced as policy by governments that have forgotten what governance means.

This story has a name: neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism emerged from the ashes of World War II, was nurtured by wealthy patrons, and was weaponised by political leaders from Reagan to Thatcher to Howard. It promised prosperity, freedom, and efficiency. It delivered inequality, insecurity, and systemic fragility.

This article traces the history of the neoliberal myth, its application in Australia, and the damage it has done – not by accident, but by design. Because the free market was never free. It was a financial strategy – a wealth transfer from the many to the few, dressed in the language of liberty.

II. David Ricardo and the Invention of Comparative Advantage

In 1817, the British economist David Ricardo published On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, introducing the theory of comparative advantage. The idea was elegant: even if one country is better at producing everything than another, both still benefit from trade if each specialises in what it does relatively best.

The theory was not wrong. It was incomplete. And it was perfectly timed.

Britain was the world’s dominant industrial power. Ricardo’s theory justified what Britain was already doing: pushing other nations to open their markets while protecting its own. Free trade for thee, but not for me.

The theory was taught as universal truth. It was not. It was a rationalisation – a scientific‑sounding justification for British economic hegemony.

III. The Myth of the “Golden Era” of Free Trade

The historian Paul Bairoch, in his 1995 book Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes, systematically dismantles the free trade mythology. His findings are devastating:

· Until the 1960s, the history of international trade in developed countries was one of protectionism, not free trade. Britain and the United States did not industrialise under free trade. They industrialised behind tariff walls.

· The “Golden Era” of free trade (1860–1879) was brief, incomplete, and followed by a protectionist backlash.

· Periods of economic growth in the Western world correlated strongly with protectionist policy.

· The myth that colonial powers grew rich by exploiting the Third World is a simplification. Most Western industrialisation was powered by domestic resources and protected markets, not colonial extraction.

Bairoch is not a socialist. He is an economic historian. And his evidence is clear: the “free market” is not a law of nature. It is a policy choice – and historically, it has been chosen far less often than its proponents admit.

IV. Free Trade as Imperial Weapon

A 2026 article in China Daily notes how the United States has historically imposed free trade and “national treatment” on poorer countries as a prerequisite for aid, credit, and market access. This was not a gentle suggestion. It was a demand.

Countries had no choice but to obey, given the widespread use of cross‑conditionality – when all sources of economic assistance (IMF, World Bank, US Treasury) impose the same conditions and share information about compliance.

The same countries that demanded free trade from others-maintained tariffs, subsidies, and protections for their own industries.

As the article notes: “US policymakers would not relate the pushing of those strategies to ‘trade deficits’, ‘overcapacity’ or ‘reciprocity’. Rather, any hint of mercantilism or zero‑sum games was considered outdated and counterproductive.”

The core arguments were presented as “quasi‑scientific” – but they ignored all the welfare economics theorising on market failure. Externalities, public goods, economies of scale, asymmetric information – all the reasons markets fail – were conveniently set aside.

The free market was not a grassroots movement. It was a financial strategy – a tool of imperial power.

V. The Chicago School and the Marketing of Neoliberalism

The Chicago School of Economics, led by Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and Gary Becker, provided the intellectual ammunition for the neoliberal counter‑revolution.

The Chicago economists argued that markets left to their own devices produce the best outcomes. They rejected the concept of market failure. They argued that government intervention almost always does more harm than good. They applied economic reasoning to areas far beyond traditional economics – law, politics, the family, discrimination.

Friedman was not merely a scholar. He was a marketer. His 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, his 1980 best‑seller Free to Choose, and the accompanying public television series brought Chicago ideas to a mass audience.

But the Chicago School was not “scientific” in the way it claimed. It was ideological.

As one historian notes, the Chicago economists “trusted in markets and the effectiveness of competition. Left to their own devices, markets produced the best outcomes. Prices were the best allocators of resources. Any intervention to change what markets, left alone, would achieve was likely to be counterproductive.”

This is not a testable hypothesis. It is a creed.

VI. Why Thatcher and Reagan Embraced the Story

Monica Prasad, in The Politics of Free Markets, shows that neoliberalism took root in the United States and Britain not because the left was weak, but because it was in some respects too strong.

At the time of the 1970s oil crisis, American and British tax policies were more punitive to business and the wealthy than in France and Germany. Their industrial policies were more adversarial. The British welfare state was the most redistributive of the four.

These adversarial structures created opportunities for politicians to mobilise dissatisfaction with the status quo. Reagan and Thatcher did not create neoliberalism. They channelled it.

But the deeper reason they embraced the story was simpler: it served the interests of their funders. The wealthy wanted lower taxes. Corporations wanted deregulation. The financial sector wanted the freedom to speculate.

The “free market” was the moral cover for a wealth transfer – from the many to the few.

VII. The Australian Experience: From Howard to Albanese

The Howard Years (1996–2007)

John Howard was not the inventor of Australian neoliberalism. The Hawke‑Keating governments had already floated the dollar, deregulated the financial sector, and opened the economy. But Howard was its zealot.

Howard’s government:

· Privatised Telstra, selling a public asset at below‑market value and creating a private monopoly that still underperforms.

· Introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST) – a regressive tax that shifted the burden from the wealthy to the working class.

· Destroyed Australia’s manufacturing capacity – car manufacturing, steel production, and pharmaceuticals were allowed to wither as tariffs were slashed and subsidies removed. Holden, Ford, and Toyota all ceased Australian production between 2016 and 2017, a direct consequence of policies that treated manufacturing as “inefficient” and “uncompetitive.”

· Weakened the industrial relations system – WorkChoices stripped workers of basic protections, gutted the award system, and made it easier to fire employees.

· Negotiated the Australia‑US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) in 2004, which, according to a Senate committee report, limited the ability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to control drug prices, costing Australian taxpayers billions.

The Rudd‑Gillard Years (2007–2013)

Labor under Rudd and Gillard did not reverse the neoliberal tide. They managed it. The Rudd government’s stimulus package during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was Keynesian, not neoliberal – but it was a one‑off. The Gillard government continued privatisation (the remaining government stake in Telstra, ports, and other assets) and pursued “competition reform” that did little to address the underlying concentration of market power.

The Abbott‑Turnbull‑Morrison Years (2013–2022)

The Coalition returned with renewed neoliberal vigour. The Abbott government’s first budget (2014) attempted to slash healthcare, education, and welfare – cuts that were largely blocked by the Senate but revealed the ideological commitment beneath. The Morrison government’s response to COVID‑19 was momentarily Keynesian (JobKeeper, increased unemployment benefits), but the underlying commitment to neoliberalism remained. The government’s “gas‑led recovery” was a giveaway to fossil fuel interests, not a serious industrial strategy.

The Albanese Years (2022–present)

The Albanese government has talked of a “future made in Australia” and industrial policy. But its actions have been neoliberal to the core:

· Stage 3 tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, were retained and implemented.

· AUKUS – a multi‑hundred‑billion‑dollar submarine deal that funnels Australian taxpayer money to US and UK defence contractors, with no guarantee of sovereign capability.

· Memorandum of Understanding with Anthropic – according to an ABC Four Corners investigation (8 June 2026), the Australian government has signed an MOU with the AI company Anthropic that could gift the company access to more than half of Australia’s electricity production. This is not industrial policy. It is resource extraction dressed in the language of “innovation.“

VIII. Why Governments Persist with the Myth

Why do governments persist with the myth that markets are more effective, in the face of evidence that they are not?

Because the myth benefits the powerful.

The evidence is clear:

· Deregulation leads to crashes (2008).

· Privatisation leads to higher costs (water, rail, energy).

· Free trade agreements protect corporate interests while eroding labour and environmental standards.

· The prescription drug provisions of the Australia‑US Free Trade Agreement limited the ability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to control prices, costing Australian taxpayers billions.

But the powerful do not fund research that contradicts their interests. They fund research that legitimises them. The Mont Pelerin Society, founded in 1947 by Friedrich Hayek, brought together the world’s leading free‑market intellectuals. Over the following decades, a network of funders – including the Volker Fund, the Earhart Foundation, and later the Koch brothers – poured money into Chicago and other free‑market institutions.

The Chicago School did not win because its ideas were superior. It won because it was organised.

And the media – which is owned by the powerful – amplifies the message.

The myth persists because there is a class with a vested interest in its persistence.

IX. The Consequences: A Kingdom of Predators

The free market does not produce a garden. It produces a jungle.

And in that jungle, the strongest predators eat the weakest.

Child sexual exploitation flourishes in the manufactured jungles of neoliberalism. In the Philippines, where deregulation, poverty, and weak law enforcement create a market for abuse, online sexual exploitation of children has become a lucrative industry. According to the Philippine Department of Justice Cybercrime Office, there are over 3,000 confirmed cases of Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children annually, but prosecutions remain rare. A 2022 study found that 2 in 10 Filipino internet users aged 12–17 had experienced online sexual abuse.

The “free market” in human flesh is not an aberration. It is a logical consequence of treating everything – including children – as commodities.

Domestic violence rises when social supports are cut. Homelessness increases when housing is treated as an asset class rather than a human right. Food insecurity spreads when wages stagnate and welfare is slashed.

The free market does not “lift all boats.” It lifts yachts – and sinks dinghies.

X. The Free Market as Theology

The free market is not science. It is not economics. It is theology.

It has its saints (Friedman, Hayek, Ricardo). Its scriptures (The Wealth of Nations, Capitalism and Freedom). Its doctrines (comparative advantage, rational expectations, efficient markets). Its eschatology (the end of history, the triumph of liberal democracy).

It demands faith – not evidence.

Because the evidence contradicts it.

Real markets require rules. They require regulation. They require tending.

The same way a garden requires tending.

You cannot just plant seeds and walk away. You must water. You must weed. You must protect the young plants from pests.

The “free market” is the fantasy of a gardener who refuses to garden.

And the result – as we have seen in Australia, in the United States, in Britain – is not a garden.

It is a jungle.

And in that jungle, the strongest predators eat the weakest.

XI. Conclusion: The Only Market That Matters

The free market is a myth. Neoliberalism is a theology. And Australia – from Howard to Albanese – has been its laboratory.

The results are not ambiguous.

Manufacturing: destroyed.

Housing: unaffordable.

Healthcare: underfunded.

Education: commodified.

Energy: gifted to AI companies.

Sovereignty: surrendered to AUKUS.

The free market does not produce freedom. It produces extraction.

The free market does not produce equality. It produces concentration.

The free market does not produce efficiency. It produces fragility.

The free market does not produce a garden. It produces a jungle.

And in that jungle – as in the Philippines, as in Australia, as in every country that has worshipped at the altar of neoliberalism – the strongest predators eat the weakest.

The free market is not a law of nature. It is a choice.

We can choose differently.

We can choose a garden.

We can choose rules. Regulation. Tending.

We can choose to govern – not because governments are perfect, but because markets, left to themselves, are predatory.

The free market is a fantasy. The garden is real.

And the garden – the garden requires gardeners.

Not gods.

Gardeners.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.

2. Bairoch, P. (1995). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. University of Chicago Press.

3. Prasad, M. (2006). The Politics of Free Markets: The Rise of Neoliberal Economic Policies in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. University of Chicago Press.

4. China Daily (2026). Free trade and the imperial weapon.

5. Australian Senate Committee Report on AUSFTA, 2005.

6. ABC Four Corners (2026, June 8). Anthropic MOU investigation.

7. Philippine Department of Justice Cybercrime Office – Annual OSAEC reporting.

8. Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union – manufacturing decline reports.

9. Australian Bureau of Statistics – housing affordability data.

10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare – healthcare funding data.

11. Monbiot, G. (2017). Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. Verso.

12. Mirowski, P., & Plehwe, D. (Eds.) (2009). The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Harvard University Press.

13. Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W. W. Norton & Company.

14. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

15. Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books.