His article didn't distinguish what conditions would justify price controls instead of subsidies, which is kind of critical, and they still "prove" that the poor would be better off if we just price-controlled all food, "since there's inequality, which makes them value a chance at the allocation a lot more".

And I never said (nor was given reason to think that) the best solution is to eliminate inequality, so I don't see how I'm agreeing with that. And I take that seriously because I mine every article for information that would force me to switch to a worldmodel with more explanatory power; this one (like most clumsy attempts to prove the pointlessness of prices) fails at that.

Taxing the rich for foodstamps is not eliminating inequality, and is not rightly regarded as a "first step" towards a policy that does; only a tiny fraction of foodstamp advocates want anything like the radical equality required for his model of this problem to apply.