Market fundamentalism market fundamentalism is an expression used by skeptics of laissez faire economic interventionist and protectionist, to denote an alleged unjustified and exaggerated belief that the free market provides the greatest possible equity and prosperity and that interference with the process market decreases social welfare. Politically, the term is often used to talk about a strong opposition to any law aimed at infringing individual liberty and to recommend the reduction of state functions in the economic and social, leading to progressive or total deregulation of these areas .The “fundamentalists” argue that markets tend towards a natural equilibrium and that the best interests of a society is achieved by allowing its participants to pursue their own interests. The expression is usually rejected as a ‘pejorative’ (fallacy straw man) by individuals and organizations to which they apply. According to John Quiggin, the usual characteristics of “economic fundamentalist rhetoric” are assertive “dogmatic” and the assertion that anyone with contrary views is not an economist really. John Ralston Saul argues that it is simply a form of bullying. This approach runs of evidence that neoclassical economists provide a scientific explanation of economic phenomena, an explanation that economists say is the truth status scientific (if and only if all the assumptions involved in deriving the economic analysis are simultaneously satisfied).However, as noted Kozul-Wright in The Resistible Rise of Market Fundamentalism, the “inevitability of market forces” that neo-liberal politicians and conservatives tend to emphasize and confidence in a chosen policy desacnsa a “mixture implicit assumptions, myths about the history of economic development in their own countries and special interests camouflaged in their rhetoric of good “. Liberal, and generally pro-market, deny any legitimacy to this term by considering a catch semantically more or less designed to undermine their ideas. For example, figures like Jean-Fran ois Revel deny such an idea, and make it clear that market economy does not aim to solve all the problems of society, but to help them improve.They further claim that liberalism, because it is not deterministic about universal purposes, has never fallen into the utopia of trying to build a perfect society is content to compare the different societies that exist or have existed, and draw relevant conclusions from those who work or have worked just as well.