> Graham’s understanding of economics is woefully pedestrian, un-researched conjecture. His conceptualization of the economics of exchange relies on a stubborn insistence and blind naive trust that the free market is the ultimate solution to which his audience must subscribe. It is distressing that one could allow arrogance to so cloud his judgment that he would embarrass himself by making such claims in an area of study he is clearly lacking any authority on which to speak.
The author sounds rather more arrogant than Paul Graham did. And free markets are the ultimate solution.
EDIT: The more I read, the more ridiculous it gets. The author takes something that Paul Graham said, throws away all of the context, and attacks it as a strawman. The article seems more keen on attacking Paul Graham than making any actual point.
It is also written in a very verbose style that makes it hard to follow whatever argument might be present.
The author sounds rather more arrogant than Paul Graham did. And free markets are the ultimate solution.
EDIT: The more I read, the more ridiculous it gets. The author takes something that Paul Graham said, throws away all of the context, and attacks it as a strawman. The article seems more keen on attacking Paul Graham than making any actual point.
It is also written in a very verbose style that makes it hard to follow whatever argument might be present.