In our last post, we explored how government spending creates unavoidable trade-offs by redirecting resources from private uses to public ones. Today, let’s examine a specific type of market distortion that makes these trade-offs even more problematic: monopsony. Most people are familiar with monopolies—situations where there’s only one seller of a particular product or service and multiple buyers. But the flip side, monopsony, gets much less attention despite being equally important. A monopsony exists when there’s essentially only one buyer for a particular good or service. In truly free markets, monopsonies are almost impossible to maintain naturally. Imagine if there …

If recent events have taught us anything, it’s that the United States government spends an eye-wateringly large amount of money every year, and it’s not always clear where exactly all that money goes or why. Leaving aside the printing and borrowing of money (for the time being), the main way these gargantuan budgets get funded is through extracting money from other people—that is, taxes. Taxes come in a variety of forms, from income taxes to tariffs and everything in between. Some are baked into consumer pricing (like tariffs), some get automatically drawn from every paycheck (like Social Security withholding), and …

“The economy is struggling.” “Capitalism exploits workers.” “The market has decided.” We use phrases like these all the time, and they sound perfectly reasonable. But there’s a linguistic problem hiding in plain sight. We’re talking about abstract concepts as if they were people capable of making decisions and taking action. In our last post in this series exploring what capitalism actually is, we touched on why systems can’t be racist. Only individuals can hold racist beliefs and make racist choices. Today, let’s dig deeper into the economic principle behind that insight, one that fundamentally changes how we understand everything from …

“Capitalism is structurally racist.” You’ve probably seen this claim in think pieces, academic papers, or social media debates. The argument suggests that capitalism, as an economic system, inherently creates and perpetuates racial inequality. It’s a serious charge that deserves serious examination. But before we dive into whether capitalism promotes or prevents racism, we need to establish something important: racism describes thoughts, feelings, and behaviors—things that only individuals possess. Systems don’t have thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. They don’t possess the agency required to be “racist” or “not racist.” Yes, this might sound like we’re splitting hairs. And no, pointing this out …

In our last post, we explored how capitalism and environmental protection aren’t opposing forces but natural allies. Today, let’s dive deeper into one of the most powerful yet counterintuitive tools for environmental protection that also happens to be a key feature of capitalism: private property rights. “But wait,” you might be thinking, “doesn’t private ownership lead to exploitation? Aren’t greedy corporations the ones polluting our rivers and clear-cutting our forests?” It’s a reasonable concern, but it misses a crucial economic principle that explains why the opposite is often true. To understand this, we need to start with a concept that …

“Capitalism is killing the planet.” You’ve probably heard this claim or something like it. The narrative is familiar: profit-hungry corporations belch pollutants into our air and dump toxins into our water with no regard for anything but their bottom line. According to this view, only the strong, regulatory hand of government stands between us and environmental catastrophe. It’s a compelling story—but is it accurate? In our previous discussions, we’ve explored what capitalism really means: a system based on private ownership, voluntary exchange, and individual decision-making. Now let’s apply this understanding to environmental questions. The standard environmental narrative often begins with …

In our last post, we explored the differences between capitalism and mercantilism, touching briefly on how tariffs are one of mercantilism’s most enduring policy tools. Today, let’s dig deeper into these import taxes and why, despite their appeal to some, they ultimately undermine the prosperity that capitalism creates. It’s not hard to understand why tariffs remain politically popular. When a domestic industry faces tough competition from overseas, the appeal to “protect jobs” by imposing tariffs can sound compelling and patriotic. The benefits of tariffs are visible and concentrated. When a steel mill stays open because foreign steel now costs more, …