In the analysis of the choice of the regulating mechanisms, containing various ingredients of market and government, the usual fallacy is pointed out consisting of the belief that, wherever the market fails, government is automatically flawless and able to overcome the failures. The real situation is the one of the choice among the mechanisms which are all fraught with their own deficiencies and the comparative analysis is called for to enable the selection of the least among several evils. Government failures are examined to some detail. Several dilemmas connected to the present crisis of the world economy are discussed. The two most marked among them are about the origins and the initiators of the crisis - is it caused by the market's inherent deficiencies or by poorly concocted governmental policies - and about what to do about the crisis - should governments intervene as they did, with much bailing out the agents from dramatic situations caused (at least partly) by their own mistakes, or should they let markets alone to work themselves out and eventually lead the economies onto the paths of stable and sustainable development. The arguments favoring the both sides of the dilemmas brought out are discussed in detail, but the general inclination of this author is towards the markets. This inclination is due to doubts in governments' willingness and ability to act properly in the times of crises (and otherwise), with some space devoted to these doubts. The myth of deregulation is discussed to some length and it is underlined that the overregulation is a part of contemporary economic realities. Tens of thousands of pages of new regulation are annually added to the existing stock of rules in various entities (the USA, the EU, individual countries). Overregulation has become a grave hazard to the economy on a planetary scale, as the institutional arrangements arising from it become as bulky and complex as to turn unmanageable. The instances are cited about the authors of various regulating acts not being able to understand the texts formalizing the regulation. The consequences of the huge regulating machinery based on those tens of thousands pages of newly created texts are literally unpredictable. One unintended consequence is structural distortion of the economy: new regulation and the one accumulated in the past and still valid is almost impossible to follow; the large firms find it easier to carry out that challenging task, occasionally by creating specialized departments, but for the smaller firms that fixed cost is more and more difficult to bear. A bias against the small firms is introduced. How is an economy to avail itself of the large firms if - and to the extent that - they have to be small before they grow? The mind of the general public, and even the professional mind, is hopelessly contaminated. A representative work of a renowned German sociologist is analyzed as an appropriate example. He takes it as perfectly reasonable to have two parallel and equivalent distribution mechanisms: the one based on the market and based on the principle that everyone obtains what he produces, i.e. what he constructively offers to the society; the other based on citizen's 'rights' empowering the individual to appropriate income independently of his productive contributions. When are these left-wingers going to learn that there is no long run hope for any system in which what one gets is not sufficiently tightly connected with what one produces and thereby contributes to the satisfaction of the needs of others? There is a basic contradiction among the ranks of the AL. On the one hand, they extensively and intensely criticize governments, not even allowing for the objective constraints that they are facing; on the other, they ask for more and more of its intervention. Their answer to this criticism is that they have in mind an entirely different government: honest, uncorrupted and, at long last, efficient. Any attempt to explain to them that good governments are not that easy to come by and that it may take decades to get hold of a solid government - proved unsuccessful and vain. The AL has a strong aversion towards the L. But they never take effort to define what to them mean the words liberal and liberalism. Nobody knows what they mean when using them. That 'enables' them to ascribe to the L all evils of this world. Thus, international domination of the strong over the smaller and weaker states, aggressions and wars, the 'disastrous' influence of international financial organizations...all these are described as genuine products of so called neoliberalism. They can throw all perversions at the front door of the liberal order and the liberal way of thinking because they don't know what the word liberal means. If they knew that the basic values on which liberalism is based are life, freedom and private ownership, they could not go on with such senseless accusations. Let this summary be concluded by a jewel thrown at an audience assembled in Andrićgrad September 12, 2014: neoliberalism is a market for war and death.