As in all Thomas’s books, they are thought out before hand not some ramblings think of every topic just so someone will read your thoughts. Dr. Sowell has a thorough template for all of his books with detailed problem, examples and solutions.

With all ideas there must be the questions of “what then?”and, and, what about as I learned in my MBA an ‘Exit Strategy? What and who does it affect all your wonderful ideas of saving the world? Didn’t even consider those people only yourself huh?! Perhaps as you see all the well fed women protesting fossil fuels not even able to answer the question of simple heating solutions for the poor or transportation of food to the wagon wheels. I specify women because it’s fuels that have allowed economic development of society; a civil society where they can walk to the store unmolested caring for their whims. So what is their plan other than to destroy their own lives but that of everyone else’s.

The conversion of leftist socialist to free thinking marketing driven explanations are all right here as in all of Dr Sowell’s books. He discusses his development and his process of maturity. We ARE the Market.

Read those religious aka historical documents if a man does not work he does not eat, as I have shared the tale of farm animals. You do not take from one man to give to another which is why the treatment of slavery is laid out which I support. Not how to lie and tax people taking from the workers to give to ass kissers or foreign nations so your family line came gain wealthy and prosperity as the rest of the world suffers and dies.

Once again great job Thomas, Thank you !

It’s easy to read and full of counter-intuitive ideas that exemplify the problem that plagues most people who advance silly economic ideas - they only consider the immediately visible consequences and not the incentives nor long term effects.

Great insight into how basic economic theories play out in real life.

Some quotes I liked:

"The economics of housing can only make us aware of the costs of our goals—and that these costs are inescapable, whether or not we acknowledge their existence or assess their magnitude.
Politics offers attractive solutions but economics can offer only trade-offs. For example, when laws are proposed to restrict the height of apartment buildings in a community, politics presents the issue in terms of whether we prefer tall buildings or buildings of more modest height in our town. Economics asks what you are prepared to trade off in order to keep the height of buildings below some specified level."

"The central question of how much risk is to be reduced at what costs is usually not raised at all by third-party safety organizations or movements. Nor are alternative risks weighed against one another. Instead, the theme is that something is “unsafe” and therefore needs to be made safe. The argument is essentially that existing risks show that current safeguards are inadequate and/or the people in control of them are insufficiently conscientious, or both. Therefore power and money need to be vested in new people and new institutions, in order to protect the public—according to this argument.
This kind of argument can be applied to almost anything, since nothing is literally 100 percent safe. It has been used against medications, pesticides, nuclear power, automobiles, and many other targets. Where the issue is the safety of nuclear power plants, for example, the answer to the question whether nuclear power is safe is obviously No! If nuclear power were safe, it would be the only safe thing on the face of the earth. This page that you are reading isn’t safe. It can catch fire, which can spread and burn down your home, with you in it. The only meaningful question, to those who are spending their own money to deal with their own risks, is whether it is worth what it would cost to fireproof every page in every book, magazine, or newspaper.
In the case of nuclear power, the question of safety, in addition to cost, is Compared to what? Compared to generating electricity with hydroelectric dams or the burning of fossil fuels or compared to reducing our use of electricity with dimmer lights or foregoing the use of many things that are run by electricity and taking our chances on alternative power sources? Once the discussion changes to a discussion of incremental trade-offs, then nuclear power becomes one of the safest options. But neither it nor anything else is categorically safe."