That blog seems to be contrasting a scarcity economy vs. an abundance economy. It seems rather light on the economy side; to me it seems like a lot of feel-good blather. The abundance notions are particularly light on economics; if treating "happiness and spirituality as the default state of being, and not just a medicine to temporarily dull the pain", for example, is what this abundance economy consists of, I think a supply-and-demand economy is more readily identified with the scarcity economy.

In my view, a traditional supply-and-demand economy is a scarcity economy; things have value because they are scarce. While it's true that the supply curve and the demand curve may have varying elasticity, that's a qualitative difference, and not one that justifies claiming it's a different type of economy.

And for the record:
My point was that "oil companies running up profits" was not bad; if they weren't making profits, they wouldn't be shipping gasoline, and I'd be buying a lot more shoes.

I didn't say (nor mean to imply) that the particular means that they have a history of making bigger profits by (collusion) is ok; that wasn't Anthony's claim.

FWIW, though, I'm a serious free-marketeer, and tend to oppose the sort of federal regulations and oversight you're discussing, but I've no great inclination to argue that here; my initial point was rather narrower, and I'll stick with that. Hence my non-respondence to vast chunks of this thread.