Runaway costs in education, housing, and healthcare stem from government intervention. When the government promises to provide a service (e.g., student loans), it becomes a massive "buy-only" force with no price sensitivity, eliminating natural market forces and causing costs to balloon.

A company's monopoly power can be measured not just by its pricing power, but by the 'noneconomic costs' it imposes on society. Dominant platforms can ignore negative externalities, like their product's impact on teen mental health, because their market position insulates them from accountability and user churn.

Adam Smith is often miscast as the originator of laissez-faire economics. In reality, his work viewed markets as embedded in human-created institutions like law and power structures, a perspective closer to institutionalism than modern neoclassical theory. The phrase "invisible hand" appears only once in his 800-page book.

From credit issuers to project developers and corporate buyers, every party in the carbon credit system benefits from lax standards. This creates a market where most credits likely represent no actual, additional emissions reduction.

Policies like price caps (e.g., for insulin) or price floors (e.g., minimum wage) that deviate from market equilibrium create distortions. The economy then compensates in unintended ways, such as companies ceasing production of price-capped goods or moving to under-the-table employment to avoid high minimum wages.

The idea that government should "stay out of" markets is a flawed model. The government is an inherent economic actor, and choosing deregulation or non-intervention is an active policy choice, not a neutral stance. This view acknowledges politics and government are inseparable from market outcomes.

The debate between liberals and conservatives over state intervention is based on a flawed premise. Both sides accept the idea of a pre-political market that sometimes "fails." The reality is that the market is always a product of political and legal decisions. The real question isn't *whether* to intervene, but who benefits from the current structure.

Scarcity is not a fixed limit but a market signal. As a resource becomes scarce, its price rises. This incentivizes human ingenuity to discover alternatives, improve efficiency, or find new extraction methods. Markets create a homeostatic system that prevents us from ever truly 'running out.'

According to economist Robert Solow, the issue with metrics like GDP isn't mismeasurement, but a deliberate choice to exclude factors like natural resource depletion. The system is flawed because we have decided not to measure certain things, which creates a distorted view of economic health.