A) yeah but the problem with "placeholders" like that is no two people agree about who fits into those placeholders. they usually end up meaning "people I don't like / agree with" e.g. Adam smith WAS an intellectual (he made his living teaching / tutoring).

B) his argument against "intellectuals" is mostly ad hominem, "they're not important anymore", "they're classest", and doesn't actually address any of the critiques of capitalism that have existed over the years.

C) his arguement for loosing restrictions presupposes that a free market or markets would by it's nature be just, which we have no evidence of (and it could even argue that history has shown the opposite to be true), and ignores the role of unconscious coercive forces (without thinking about it hiring less people of color), and ignores the role of systematic coercive forces (being born into an area with 3rd world level school, living pay check to pay check because you're paid so little such that you have no time to learn other skills (working two jobs etc) and you can't quit because without that job you can't eat / live in your house), the government isn't saying we know better, the government is saying it's not ok to exploit a person because they agree to it because there are other coercive forces than you.

D) wages in markets are not completely determined by productivity, if anything in the past decades we've seen worker productivity rise, with wages adjusted for inflation lowering (http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/), in addition to that this ignores things such as businesses colluding to fix wages (which has been being exposed more and more recently (https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage-fixing-cartel-involved-dozens-more-companies-over-one-million-employees/), the labor pool being so large that no one will pay tom a living wage for his work and would rather do something like what walmart does where they only give people < 20 hours a week to avoid benefits.

I'm going to stop breaking down each of his arguments, but essentially he's falling victim to anthropomorphizing the market by assuming that a lot of good things (justness, wellbeing, sustainability, etc) would just naturally happen without any evidence for that, and ignoring a lot of bad things that already happen not because of regulation but because of power relations.