The free market is a bunch of fucking horseshit. So there's that.
Maybe try re-examining the assumption the "most efficient" way of distributing resources is better than finding a more equitable and globally beneficial distribution of resources.
You probably think you're getting downvoted because people disagree with you, but it's actually because your comment amounts to the cliché "wake up sheeple".
(edit: sorry, I shouldn't tell you what you 'probably think'. Bad phrasing.)
FWIW: I studied economics. I have a degree in the subject. I've continued my education since.
I agree largely (though not wholly -- truth is a bit more nuanced) with your sentiment.
If you want to make the case, though, pointing to references for others to look at tends to be more persuasive.
You'll actually find a lot of support within the field of economics itself, though much as well outside of it -- sociology, anthropology, physics, chemistry, and ecology all come to mind. There've been articles noting the crisis within economics over the past decade in such left-wing pinko rags as The Economist, Financial Times, and Forbes, as well as the more plausible sources such as The New York Times and The Guardian.
Thomas Piketty's recent book Capital in the 21st Century (you've probably heard of it) addresses much of this. Hell, you'll find a lot of similar sentiment within Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which, I can pretty much promise you, isn't the unalloyed defense of laissez-faire, non-interventionist, anti-statist doctrine many people would like you to believe (and likely believe themselves). David Brin's been on a kick to get people to read, really read, Smith, and I have to agree.
Even with persuasive argument you'll get a lot of hostility, but you'll also tend to convince a few people if you line your evidence up.
Maybe try re-examining the assumption the "most efficient" way of distributing resources is better than finding a more equitable and globally beneficial distribution of resources.