I'm surprised by the amount of comments denying even the sense of such critique as DHH presented in the article. The problem comes from a very narrow understan

I'm surprised by the amount of comments denying even the sense of such critique as DHH presented in the article. The problem comes from a very narrow understanding of how 'capitalism/free market economy/society' should work. In the original theoretical framework that laid the ground for the modern economical system, David Hume (and Adam Smith) talked about 'spontaneous order' that comprised multiple social signals, not just prices! Society and economy are complex adaptive system with multiple inputs and any public indignation like this one are perfect examples of signals that should act like 'invisible hand'. The more such signals we'll allow, the better the optimisation will be, not just in terms of economical efficiency, but also environmental friendliness, quality of life impact etc. Unfortunately neoclassical economy (including some Nobel price winners) seem to be blissfully unaware of where they are coming from and they tend to ditch social 'messiness' so characteristic for any complex system in favour of simplified mathematical models. For anyone interested, I really recommend the below: 1) This talk about the missing forgotten part of Adam Smith thought ("The Theory of Moral Sentiment"), that significantly changes the understanding of his perspective: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/04/vernon_smith_an.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/04/vernon_smith_an.htm... 2) This article by Yannis Varoufakis on the idea of Spotaneous Order and how it got oversimplified over the last 3 centuries: https://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/02/25/on-spontaneous-order-valve-the-future-of-corporations-hume-smith-marx-and-hayek-a-one-hour-chat-with-russ-roberts-on-econtalk/ https://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/02/25/on-spontaneous-order-v...