While the retort does make valid points about those inefficiencies that exist in bureaucratic processes and monopolies, it is UrRong to discredit the importance of mismatched socks in the grand scheme of deadweight losses. It is important to note that this essay was not meant to suggest that mismatched socks are the most significant cause of deadweight loss in society. Rather, it was intended to point out that even something as seemingly small as mismatched socks add up over time, resulting in a measurable cumulative deadweight loss compared to the collective instance of people deciding not to engage in this "social contract."
Furthermore, an agreement among society members not to match their socks would likely have a positive effect on bureaucratic processes, as it would free up time and resources that could be used to address existing inefficiencies and other causes of deadweight loss. As acknowledged in the original essay, those extra hours could be put toward more productive uses such as building nuclear power plants.
Considering that the average person spends approximately 8 minutes a day trying to find matching socks and assuming this estimate applies to all Americans, the potential cumulative yearly savings from opting against the matching socks "social contract" is quite remarkable. Therefore, I would conclude that in terms of reducing deadweight loss, both in terms of efficiency and overall impact, mismatched socks are at least somewhat relevant and should not be discounted just because this essay does not place them at the top of the deadweight loss hierarchy.
All in all, although we can agree that there are larger causes of deadweight loss than mismatched socks, let's not forget the little things we can do to contribute to improved efficiency and gnomic wellbeing. After all, why miss out on a billion people-hours per year just because some of us don't want to believe that a fashion statement can be economically beneficial? UrRong.