It is a naive position, but no more so (as other have pointed out) than the idea that unregulated free markets can solve every problem.<p>Both of these positions are things which might naturally occur to someone with relatively little experience watching the impact of regulation or the evolution of unconstrained free markets. Is it &quot;shocking&quot; that someone who hasn&#x27;t had an opportunity to observe a system in action (which is pretty much what the entire piece is about) comes to a naive conclusion?<p>No. I&#x27;d say that&#x27;s a <i>perfectly reasonably</i> naive position.