> You have a dogma yourself. that's ok, just be aware that you have one, and are espousing one. I completely deny this. I am anti-dogma and presume at this poi

> You have a dogma yourself. that's ok, just be aware that you have one, and are espousing one. I completely deny this. I am anti-dogma and presume at this point that you are either just lumping me in with dogmatic people who say things that my points remind you of or that you are otherwise misinterpreting me. What's my dogma? Are you just conflating "dogma" with things like "bias" and "perspective" because I certainly have those, I'm just one person and not omniscient. > The free market is one of the most tested ideas out there. The free-market as a MODEL is well-tested and understood. There are cases where reality fits the model pretty well, but they are isolated. The vast majority of reality is far enough from the free-market model that it's impossible to use reality as a test of "the free market" because most markets in reality aren't fully free. I suspect you're equating "market" with "free market". All the complex parameters of pricing, supply-and-demand, basic market economics… that's all present in most markets, free or non-free. It's not like when there are regulations or power imbalances, cartels etc. etc. that all of market economics disappears. But there's so rarely any example of completely free market to even study, we can't accurately accept that it's well-tested. We can't study free-markets in a lab the way we can study basic physics or cell biology or whatever. Besides, the vast majority of economics as a field has been practiced in ways that are nowhere near the scientific rigor of many other fields. > [your last two paragraphs] I'm not sure I follow the relevance here. Are you assuming that you're talking to some dogmatic ideologue such that the plain things you state which seem sensible enough is a counter to anything I think or wrote?