My only response:

    "Every heartwarming human interest story in america is like "he raised $20,000 to keep 200 orphans from being crushed in the orphan-crushing machine" and then never asks why an orphan-crushing machine exists or why you'd need to pay to prevent it from being used."

   Why make the perfect the enemy of the good? Unrealistic demands like "shut down the orphan crushing machine" are why the left always loses. We need to start thinking about how we can make orphan crushing machine operators feel more comfortable in our coalition, and talk like this only alienates them further.

Chicago School uses their one hammer, again.

I'm not sure the article really backs up the point that the difference here was markets. As it says, the problem with the initial system was that it "operated in ignorance of what food banks needed". It looks down its nose at this "centralized system", but the new system was also centralized. As far as I can see, the main difference between the old and new systems is that the old system did not provide a way for individual food banks to indicate what goods they needed.

That's not to say that the market system they devised is a bad idea. But it seems a bit disingenuous to trumpet that markets were the panacea when there was a lack of information flow that could have been alleviated in other ways.