I'm kind of on the side of the GP: "I think you need to distinguish between an idealized free market system and a free market system with some controls and moderation that actually works to reduce the kinds of societal tensions that can really be disruptive and destructive to people's lives."
This is kind of important and kind of what civilization is bringing us to. The combination of the free market and the laws that favor ownership is a bit barbaric for a country that is flush with money. It caters to the wealthy and actively keeps other down, so long as everyone plays by the rules that favor the rich. It's like a game where the more times you win, the stronger you get, and the weaker your opponent gets. Those are dumb rules, but it seems to be the rules we're currently playing by.
The idea of the 99% movement was to say you can't have it both ways. You can't be rich, however you got there, and then actively try to keep other people from getting rich too. That's only "competition" when the rules aren't skewed in the wealthy people's favor. Don't get me wrong...they've ALWAYS been skewed in that direction. I think it's time to change that. The wealthy live on the backs of the poor and middle class: it's a simple task to say: "Anyone making over $200,000 per year will pay 30% in federal taxes, which will go towards education, infrastructure, and pretty much anything but the military which has enough money. Sales of stock and funds included."
Executives will be more willing to spread the wealth to their employees. Minimum wages might rise on their own, but they'll also be capped on their own which should serve to keep the prices of goods at a reasonable level. SF is expensive because the salaries they pay are so high. Cap the salaries, prices should come down. /off soapbox //definitely voting for Bernie in the primary