You’re wrong — and the cliche-ridden apologetic is dead wrong, too. If I need to buy food to survive, and the only way to do that is to walk down to the one supermarket within 45 miles of me, is that a voluntary transaction? Or is this just an indication of the insufficient purity of the market?
If I need housing for shelter, and yet all the housing within an hour’s commute of my job eats up 75% of my income, is that a market that’s serving me well? Or is this just an indication of the insufficient purity of the market?
If hoarding isn’t a central feature of capital today, then why are dozens of major banks sitting on trillions of dollars of nonproductive capital for the purposes of juicing their own stock prices? Or is this just an indication of the insufficient purity of the market?
If all of these problems are just signs for the insufficient purity of the market then maybe the thing in which you’re really interested is the perfect, haloed purity of the market, and not the actual well-being of the people who have to live under it.