So, watch out for those religious zealots indeed.
And they did that because they weren't 100% "free", but were regulated.
Imagine someone who said this: "Fire is good. It heats our homes, it cooks our food, it runs our cars and our industry and lets us travel quickly from one place to another. So let's get rid of all fire departments and all forest control services, and let fire be as efficient as it can be."
That's obviously a stupid position to take. Fire is neither good nor bad; it's a force that can be incredibly powerful when harnessed for good, and incredibly destructive when allowed to run rampant. And there are times when it's simply not the right tool for the job.
Markets are the same way. Talking about the "free market" is a bit silly: All markets have constraints, either natural or artificial, and they optimize based on those constraints. When appropriately channeled, they can be a powerful force for allocation of resources and experimentation. When not appropriately controlled, they can destroy environments and harm society. And sometimes it's simply not the right tool for the job.
During Soviet times, everybody could afford toilet paper but nobody could buy it...
Well, no. People manufacturing masks still have a choice as to whether to make masks at the price-controlled price or not. If it's not cost-effective, they won't make any. If it's adequately cost-effective, they'll make the normal amount. If the price controls are still fairly lucrative, they'll be encouraged to make more product.
On the other hand, the knowledge that there will be no limits on "surge pricing" might encourage people to build up stockpiles to smooth out shocks in supply or demand; whereas, the knowledge that there will be limits on "surge pricing" might discourage people from building up stockpiles, thus making shocks in supply or demand worse.
In both cases, "the market" is still doing what the market does: optimizing for the particular inputs it's given. The question is, which outcome do we prefer?
EDIT: And, is the market actually the right tool for this particular job?
For instance, in the case of vital medical equipment such as N95 masks, maybe it makes sense to have the government stockpile reserves, rather than relying on the market to do it.
No other subsequent oil crises had the same disastrous effect, because the market was allowed to solve the problem.
How much was the market, and how much was the government?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(U...
An abundance of commodities disrupts the conditions for the creation of profits. Nobody really disputes the overproduction phenomena and consequences. At the macro-scale this can have a contagion effect and cause what's called a "general glut" identified by both Smith and Ricardo.
We saw that in the shale oil bust just recently. Price controls and making the government the buyer of last resort (for instance, the Commodity Credit Corporation) are remedies for fixing this flaw. They are there because of a fundamental flaw in market economics.
I still remember entering a supermarket in the west after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The shock at all that choice... is indescribable.
Simply acknowledging an economic phenomena doesn't make someone a soviet communist.
Some really ardent neo-classicalists say they don't exist but I haven't read their evidence carefully enough to speak to it (here's an intro by Rothbard if you're interested: https://mises.org/library/says-law-markets)
I personally think some of the most notable Austrians had a bad habit of using arguments of convenience to defend the financial interests of the wealthy benefactors who funded their institutions and reversed their arguments when expedient but that's a separate conversation.
The majority of people are workers. You're telling me the "risk" an entrepreneur takes is being on equal footing with their (former) employees? Man, you're making a great argument against capitalism, if that's what you're saying.
Entrepreneurs also risk their time which employees usually prefer to sell at guaranteed return. But some choose middle ground by accepting a mixed (cash + stock) compensation.
I believe we, as a society, would gain more if more people would "risk" the entrepreneurial path.
The risk narrative is the current preferred reason to justify gross inequality caused by power imbalances.
It ignores that every participant is taking a risk. It's just some manufactured narrative designed so that we'd think "well alright" and not question the unjustifiable disproportionate gross inequity of all the reward going to those with the smallest risk because of how structural power works.
The lowest wage worker living paycheck to paycheck has wayyyy more risk exposure than someone like me who has skated by trivially without a paycheck for over a year. The idea that my investment portfolio entitles me to the profits because of some immense risk I'm taking is clearly totally manufactured bullshit that's used to shape public opinion.
I could lose every penny without affecting my quality of life at all. Literally zero effect. The risk is purely abstract. It's not material in the slightest
The premise of your argument is incorrect because they are not real. The free market is an impossible theoretical intellectual exercise and nothing more.
Show me where all participants instantaneously knows the utility maximization function of all potential transactions and exercises individual maximization with friction free transfers based on perfect infinite information and we can more forward with your argument.
Otherwise you're simply attributing unspecific generalities to a fiction.
The task is still on you to demonstrate how the free market isn't a fiction.
I went into a small one this very morning, to buy some apples and eggs. Looked very real to me. And free: nobody told the sellers at which price to sell and nobody made me buy if I didn’t like it.
Free markets are a specific definition with specific conditions.