It is a naive position, but no more so (as other have pointed out) than the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem. Both of these positions

It is a naive position, but no more so (as other have pointed out) than the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem. Both of these positions are things which might naturally occur to someone with relatively little experience watching the impact of regulation or the evolution of unconstrained free markets. Is it "shocking" that someone who hasn't had an opportunity to observe a system in action (which is pretty much what the entire piece is about) comes to a naive conclusion? No. I'd say that's a perfectly reasonably naive position.