[AKrumbach]

> I found it kind of funny that the author's big conclusion was less state-directed action, leaning on the thought that somehow the economy will work out for everyone...

The original undirected market [that is: the natural environment, and evolutionary selection] seems to have regularly turned out OK results, even for sub-optimal organisms, for millions of years.

Now, do we have any guarantee that a similar system would work just as well in our economy? No -- but I read the point of the article as stating that the current system may claim such guarantees, but the housing crash and subsequent slow recovery can be read as proving the ineffectiveness of the "incantations" used by the government to direct the economy.

> ...proliferation of "schools" and "think-tanks" that provide a selection of justifications to do what you already wanted to do. The science of how governments should handle money is too important not to be made into a political football.

Given your description of economic policy markers as "justifications" rather than some manner of lever / control, why should we believe governments' monetary policy is based on science? If it is not, the author claims (and I am prone to agree) that abandoning this false belief in search of the truth will improve our lives far more than the comfort granted by it.