Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a pejorative term applied to a strong belief in the ability of laissez-faire or free market policies to solve most economic and social problems.
Critics of laissez-faire policies have used the term to denote what they perceive as a misguided belief, or deliberate deception, that free markets provide the greatest possible equity and prosperity, and that any interference with the market process decreases social well being. Users of the term include adherents of interventionist, mixed economy, and protectionist positions, as well as billionaires such as George Soros, economists such as Nobel Laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, and Cornell University historian Edward E. Baptist. George Soros suggests that market fundamentalism includes the belief that the best interests in a given society are achieved by allowing its participants to pursue their own financial self-interest with no restraint or regulatory oversight. Critics claim that in modern society with world-wide conglomerates, or even merely large companies, the individual has no protection against fraud nor harm caused by products that maximize income by imposing externalities on the individual consumer as well as society. Historian Edward E. Baptist contends "unrestrained domination of market forces can sometimes amplify existing forms of oppression into something more horrific," such as slavery, and that "market fundamentalism doesn’t always provide the best solution for every economic or social problem."
According to economist John Quiggin, the standard features of economic fundamentalist rhetoric are dogmatic assertions combined with the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist. However, Kozul-Wright states in his book The Resistible Rise of Market Fundamentalism that "ineluctability of market forces" neo-liberals and conservative politicians tend to stress, and their confidence on a chosen policy, rest on a "mixture of implicit and hidden assumptions, myths about the history of their own countries' economic development, and special interests camouflaged in their rhetoric of general good".