The “anti-regulation ideological bias of the economics profession as a whole” cited by the CT author is, in my opinion simply a reflection of her personal, transparent pro-regulation ideological bias.

The mere willingness to state, or to teach, the fact that a imposing price floor above the equilibrium price will invariably result in a surplus is not, without more, “free-market orthodoxy” any more than merely noting “demand curves slope downward” somehow constitutes “free-market orthodoxy.” It’s closer to metaphysics than to ethics.

But the insistence that “pointing out this fact constitutes ‘free-market orthodoxy’” does, I would submit, constitute anti-market orthodoxy.