My statement was about inefficient investments. In case of corruption, I totally agree that this also causes harm no matter where it takes place. Let's make an example: if I own a company and employ a good friend of mine despite not having a real use for him so he basically sits there and is totally unproductive, I basically pay him with my winnings. If there's a sufficiently competitive market, it either means the cost are on me or other companies which don't have a gnocchi are more productive and will take over my work. It get's critical if there are no alternatives, i.e., in case of inefficient markets. And this is another area where the state - in my opinion - is necessary. The theoretical construct of 'free markets' does not exist/work in practice, there need to be a regulatory framework. It's just a matter of defining the rules and boundaries to the so-called freedom of choice. My personal opinion on the subject is that markets are great - they often result in very efficient allocation of resources. But at the same time, they can also fail horribly - we don't want child labor, paying huge 'fees' due to price-rigging of a small amount of dominating companies, etc. and a state should ideally provide boundaries to the total freedom where markets fail, but keep out of the markets where they work efficiently.