You make sense up to a point — there is indeed good capitalism and bad capitalism. They really should have two different names; it is a pity that they end up confused.

What is clear is that free markets work. A lot of claims that a particular free market has “failed”, don’t understand that there wasn’t a free market. “Privatization” is not synonymous with “a free market” and even “competition” is not synonymous with a free market. The crucial condition for a free market, is that there is freedom for new suppliers to enter it, converting superabundant resources into goods/services.

Real life experience shows that there is a completely different equilibrium when that freedom is lacking, even if there is a large number of “suppliers”. The best example is urban property markets — it is falsely assumed that constraints can be applied to the conversion of rural land to urban use (eg a growth boundary or rural zoning) but there is still “competition” between the thousands of site owners in the existing city. But the house price median multiple is always at least twice as high.

Mr Haque never seems to understand who are the useful idiots for the cleverest capitalists gouging schemes. It is the Left who have a blind faith in urban planning of a kind that always creates a rentiers paradise in urban property. It is the Left that constantly thwarts effective reforms to constrain health system costs, such as tort law reform (ambulance-chasing lawyers are an important Dem constituency). And it is the Left, in the form of activist, anti-capitalist politicians, judges and regulators, who prevent the health insurance sector from offering non-gold-plated schemes with coverage equal to, say, what the public health system in Canada or the UK offers. It is the Left that thwarts School Choice and education reform. In all these cases, a bit more “free market” would be beneficial but has not been allowed.

It is certainly nonsense to claim that free-market ideologues are responsible for these debacles. There is certainly guilt in “the establishment” on both the Democrat and Republican sides, but the only people with any moral standing are the somewhat libertarian wing of the Republicans. If you condemn crony capitalism but claim that the solution is only ever more government intrusion, you just don’t get it. Government intrusion is justified on many grounds, but most of what we have is the bad kind — the crony capitalists outwit and “buy” the conceited politicians and regulators and judicial activists too much of the time. And it is mostly spun as “for our own good” and “for our protection” and so on, and people advocating for more market freedom (to reduce prices/costs) are slandered as “serving vested interests”, a sickening moral inversion!

By the way, I am doubtful about the “400% increase in food costs” claim. But if food costs have increased, some government interference in competitive supply, and the creation of oligopolies, will be the reason.