Jason, I know you don't like anybody to suggest there's anything wrong with the articles you write, but it seems as though the only argument you're capable of making goes like this: (1) comically overstate a position, (2) show that position is wrong, (3) voila!
I don't know of anybody who thinks that markets are perfect. Anybody who has taken an Economics 101 course in college has been taught that markets are typically not perfect. Some markets are generally more perfect than others, but no economist assumes that any market is perfect. The "perfect market" is like a Platonic ideal: it's a definition, not a description of anything that actually exists in the real world.
On the other hand, you continue to make it sound as though you believe that a better solution can be fashioned. Why?