His article didn&#x27;t distinguish what conditions would justify price controls instead of subsidies, which is kind of critical, and they still &quot;prove&quot; that the poor would be better off if we just price-controlled all food, &quot;since there&#x27;s inequality, which makes them value a chance at the allocation a lot more&quot;.<p>And I never said (nor was given reason to think that) the best solution is to eliminate inequality, so I don&#x27;t see how I&#x27;m agreeing with that.  And I take that seriously because I mine every article for information that would force me to switch to a worldmodel with more explanatory power; this one (like most clumsy attempts to prove the pointlessness of prices) fails at that.<p>Taxing the rich for foodstamps is not eliminating inequality, and is not rightly regarded as a &quot;first step&quot; towards a policy that does; only a tiny fraction of foodstamp advocates want anything like the radical equality required for his model of this problem to apply.