no, my point being that the market is actually controlled by greed. People are not perfect and the market is actually fixed. You can support the idea of a free market but it doesn't mean the market is going to follow that ideology.
I hope the market is controlled by "greed", as you call it. Person A wants something Person B has. Person B voluntarily agrees to an exchange of goods/services. Just as long as humans are capable of mutual comparison, there will be envy, which is good. It is the motivation that makes people want to improve their lives, and the free market provides the mechanism for which people can freely exchange things as they please.
The problem - why the market is actually "fixed" - is because of government meddling in it. Messing with interest rates by the unregulated Federal Reserve. Debasing currencies. Rewarding poor business decisions that would otherwise weed out the poor businesses. Providing an atmosphere for businesses to believe that if they fail, they will be bailed out by the government, so there is no longer any restraint in engaging in fiscally irresponsible or risky business decisions. Then there is the social economic engineering.
Or what about this scenario that played out in the late 70s and mid 90s? The greatest exploitation in recent American history was this sub-prime mortgage problem. Entirely created by the government:
1) Government wants votes, but more importantly, they want money, and more specifically, they want money for their business partners and federal reserve. Poor people who don't live in nice houses want nice houses.
2) Government tells banks that it is okay to lend to poor people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. They got their back, and since interest rates were always [artificially] low and the real estate prices were rising, they didn't foresee it ever being a problem. They're too smart. They paint this as a great American ideal that everyone should own a house and the government will make sure the banks will make that possible - though they ordinarily would have not, obviously.
3) Millions of poor people buy houses. In order to facilitate this, new houses need to be constructed. Construction business flourishes. Many other housing related industries and banks start doing really, really well.
4) The gig goes on for awhile. All praise the Fed for making this brilliant situation whereby people who can't afford nice houses get to live in nice houses.
5) The economy takes a downturn and most of these people start defaulting on their mortgages because - surprise! - they don't and never did have the money to afford their houses. Most end up poorer than they were before, their money surrendered to housing related businesses and banks.
6) The government and media paint this problem as the problems of an "unregulated" free-market when this couldn't be further from the truth. It was that the government decided to interfere in the first place that created an artificial business situation that would have never existed in the free market.
What really happened:
Government just took billions of dollars from mostly working class people and redistributed to the banks and large housing businesses, and of course, back to the Federal Reserve. The brilliance of this plan of exploitation is that the victims are so eager to participate in it, and when the deed is done, they come back to the government even more willing to be "protected" when they really are just signing up for more exploitation. The government robs the voters of their economic independence to secure support, and at the same time, takes what little money they had to fund the expanding government needed to satisfy all of their crazy expanding powers that the people now crave after what the so-called evil businesses did to them.
Quite the system.