Could there be a better alternative system? Short answer - no. Like democracy, it is imperfect but superior to all alternatives that have been tried.

Long answer - maybe later.

Milton Friedman once described the division of Germany into East and West as one of the few examples of a controlled experiment in economics.

Why is it that on one side of an arbitrary line there was East Germany and on the other side there was West Germany with such a different level of prosperity? It was because West Germany had a system of largely free, private markets allowed by the government. By contrast East German had a government that was controlled by a particular group, the Communist Party, that gave the people what the Party thought they ought to want and then of course funneled the wealth towards themselves. Unfortunately this repeated in history again and again.

Why is a place like Zimbabwe so poor when it was once the richest country in Africa - because it no longer has a government that allows the free market to work. As joke goes where is the capital of Zimbabwe? In Swiss bank accounts.

It is not markets that are the problem but governments. The existence of a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essential both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on. However to achieve this state you need a system that allows failing or corrupt governments to be removed and democracy appears to be the most successful at achieving this aim.

Judging by the number of times the author mentions the word 'social'/'society', including mourning that "then desirable social attitudes, bonds, relations and social cohesion are diminished or driven out" and as he also speaks lowly of individual advancement, I am not convinced that he honestly condemns socialism.

The author criticises the existing "market", but never even mentions "free market". No current market is free, nor was any market in modern times ever allowed to be free. Government regulations are all over the place, along with preferences, privileges and even financial support given by government to companies and corporations at the expense of individual traders. Many of the faults the article mentions would be eliminated had people been allowed to form their own truly free markets, rather than be forced to trade using the money printed and manipulated by governments. In other words, the current market is anything but 'marvellous'.

As for welfare, justice, needs, etc., why of all things should this be the responsibility of markets? Markets are only one type of activity among many - markets did not cause the sun to light the sky, markets do not cause earthquakes and markets did not produce life on earth nor give them a meaning or purpose!

As the author abhors unemployment, a form of non-participation in the market, I suspect he has a complex love/hate relation with markets, similar to the beaten-wife syndrome. Otherwise one should instead celebrate people who live independently of this market.

By calling the market a "mechanism" the author denies its natural existence long before organised society came about. Indeed, when man conspires to take over and mechanise nature for his selfish desires, in this case for social engineering, the result is always worse.

I agree with much of the analysis in this article. It is absurd the extent to which market forces are allowed to dominate our lives. I regard them as a tool which is occasionally very useful, but which used inappropriately causes immense damage.

Just as you need more than one tool to build a house, so you need more than market forces to build a society.

Thanks for the reference to The Simpler Way website. I wasn't aware of it. Suspect I won't agree with some of it, because of the references to anarchism, but so what? It is important to read things you don't agree with, then formulate precisely why you don't, without denigrating the author. Previous commenters should try this approach. They haven't done much to rebut the faults of market forces.

Dear Philip,

You are very right!

The article, as written, did not entice me in the least to go and look at "The Simpler Way" website, thus it very poorly represents it : it's only your advice which sent me to look there, and what I find there is very different than the article - the article being mostly negative and speaking in slogans while the website mostly positive and reasoned.

Like yourself, there are things I agree with in "The Simpler Way" (including anarchism and how it is differentiated from Marxism) and things that I don't. Time permitting I will continue to read its interesting articles.

The "simpler way" site appears to be total crap, as it's based on incorrect assumptions about the limits of the current system.

Despite this the author does make a good point: markets are a useful tool, but that doesn't mean they will lead to the most desirable outcome. And that's certainly not because the markets aren't free enough.