ABSTRACT
Criticism of markets as unsuitable for meeting basic needs has always been led by those whose basic needs are satisfied. People with least to trade have least influence on what markets make available; those whose trade has moved on from materials to ideas seek an invisible mind that is notably missing from the invisible hand. Markets’ haphazardness and unpredictablility, with aggregate effects shaped by seemingly inconsequential and sometimes irrational individual choices, has long frustrated those who step outside the trading arena to consider what goes on there. But recent recognition of the intellectual challenge in understanding markets, while quelling the desire to criticise, has greatly expanded the grounds on which to do so.
