This post seems to be circulating as  a valid refutation of free markets.  Sadly, all too many just knows they hates the marketsss they’ll jump on anything that appears to be the ammunition they need to fire at whatever they were pointing at anyway.  In the end, they don’t realize they are shooting blanks…nor do they care.

The author of the post argues the “creamy middle” of a debate is valid as opposed to just looking at two ends of the spectrum:

“The experiment of having government own all the means of production in an industrial society, along the lines proposed by Marx, received a thorough test at the hands of the Communist bloc and failed abjectly.”

and at the other end:

“At the same time, the experiment of having government keep its hands off the economy altogether in an industrial society, along the lines proposed by a great many free-market proponents these days, received an equally thorough test, and failed just as dismally. The test took place a little earlier; in America, it ran from the end of the Civil War into the first decade of the twentieth century, and the result was a catastrophic sequence of booms and busts, the transfer of most of the nation’s wealth to a tiny minority of wealthy people, the bitter impoverishment of nearly everyone else, and a level of social unrest that included two presidential assassinations and so many bomb.attacks on the rich and their families that bomb-throwing anarchists became a regular theme of music-hall songs.”

The author then states on paper, “free markets are as mythical as hippogriffs”:

He is correct as I wrote in a bit of a rant previously.   If A is good, the opposite of A must be evil, right?  No.  The opposite of evil is fair, not good.

How can the author of that post  state free markets are an abject failure yet acknowledge a free market is a myth?  I hope that question triggers some cognitive dissonance.  We’ve never had one!