This is a phenomenal word-salad so full of fallacies it makes my head spin. However, it makes perfectly clear how you think the market should work.

First, the title. Whatever can you mean by "letting the market decide?"

If you were a real estate tycoon and you buy an undeveloped piece of land for $150 million, that is a market transaction. When you pick up a loaf of bread and a quart of milk at the supermarket, that is a market transaction. If you stop at the Girl Scout table on your way out to get some Tagalongs, that is a market transaction. When you agree to let your neighbor borrow your truck in exchange for a fill-up and a six-pack of beer, that is a market transaction.

At no time was the market itself making any kind of decision. All the decisions were made by the parties of the transaction: the producer and the consumer, or the seller and the buyer. In three of the scenarios I mentioned above, you are the consumer/buyer. In the last one, you are the producer/seller.

At no point did the "market" participate in the transactions at all. It did not decide anything, it "enabled" nothing, it applied no "force" that must be reckoned with. The market does not even have any physical existence. It is an abstract concept that consists of the aggregate of all the economic transactions that take place over time.

As an exercise, re-read your article but substitute the word "people" or "society" for the word "market."

A "free" market simply means that both buyer and seller are free to accept or reject the terms of the transaction. A controlled market means one or both have some arbitrary rule or set of rules that limit the choices of one or both of the participants. In the real world, these arbitrary rules can only originate from parties that can apply legal extortion: government agencies and labor unions. Without such extortion, people would, of course, just do what they wished.

These rules are always applied in order to "fix" a market mistake. Yet the market, because it doesn't actually do anything, does not make mistakes. Each individual transaction of a free market only takes place with the express approval of both sides, so it is hard to point to any one of the many transactions and say it was a mistake. You are, of course, free to hold such an opinion about a transaction. However, you should be aware that the participants of that transaction may not share your opinion. That is the beauty (and if you will, the "power") of free market transactions--each participant gets to choose for themselves if the benefits from the transactions are worthy of the cost.

Btw, I remember during the run-up to the passage of Obama-Care, that there were many of us who made the claim that, despite the claims, the price of medical care would go up rather than down. Our claim was sound: never in the history of Mankind has any government been able to provide any product or service for less cost than the free market could provide it. The best they could hope to accomplish was to hide the true cost.

Thank you for providing us with documentation that we were right.