Money isn't real. Well, it is real in the sense that you can use it to buy a taco or pay your rent, but the way we talk about it is usually a mess of half-truths and myths handed down from people who haven't opened an econ textbook since 1984. Most of us go through life making big financial decisions—or voting for politicians—based on a collection of economic facts and fallacies that don't actually hold up under the light of day.
It’s frustrating.
You hear people say the national debt is just like a credit card. It isn't. You hear people say that if the stock market is up, the economy is "winning." Not necessarily. We get caught in these mental traps because economics feels like math, and math feels like objective truth. But economics is actually the study of human behavior under pressure. It's messy. It’s weird. And it’s often counterintuitive.
The Broken Window and the Growth Myth
One of the most persistent fallacies out there was popularized by Frédéric Bastiat back in the 19th century. He called it the "Broken Window Fallacy." It’s basically the idea that destruction is good for the economy because it creates jobs. You’ve probably heard a version of this after a natural disaster. Someone on the news says, "Well, the hurricane was terrible, but the rebuilding effort will really jumpstart the local GDP."
That is nonsense.
If a kid breaks a baker's window, the baker has to spend $500 to fix it. The glass shop now has $500 they didn't have before. They spend it on a new suit. The tailor spends it on a nice dinner. On the surface, it looks like the broken window created a chain of wealth. But you're forgetting what the baker would have done with that $500 if the window hadn't broken. Maybe he would have bought a new oven. That oven would have allowed him to bake more bread, lowering prices and feeding more people.
Instead, he’s just back to where he started: with one window.
Destruction doesn't create wealth; it just redirects it. When we ignore "the unseen"—the things that would have happened—we fall into a trap. This applies to government subsidies, too. When a city spends $500 million on a sports stadium, they talk about the jobs created. They rarely talk about the businesses that were never started because that money was taxed away from the citizens.
Why Minimum Wage Isn't a Simple Lever
Talking about the minimum wage usually gets people heated. One side claims it’s a cure for poverty. The other says it’s a job killer. The reality? It’s a nuanced mess.
Economists like David Card and Alan Krueger shook things up in the 90s with their study on fast-food workers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. They found that raising the minimum wage didn't necessarily lead to a spike in unemployment. This challenged the "standard" economic fact that if you raise the price of something (labor), demand for it will drop.
But there’s a catch.
👉 See also: 312 Walnut Street Cincinnati Ohio: Why This Office Tower Still Rules the Queen City Skyline
Businesses aren't charities. If the wage goes up, they might not fire people right away, but they might stop hiring. Or they might cut hours. Or, as we see more often now, they’ll invest in a kiosk that doesn't need a lunch break or a health insurance plan. Thomas Sowell, a heavy hitter in the world of economic facts and fallacies, often points out that the "real" minimum wage is always zero—which is what you earn if you lose your job because the entry-level rung on the ladder was moved too high for you to reach.
It’s about trade-offs. Everything in economics is a trade-off. If you want higher wages for some, you might end up with higher prices for everyone or fewer opportunities for the least skilled workers. You can’t just pretend the costs don't exist.
The National Debt Isn't Your Visa Bill
Stop comparing the US government to a household. Just stop.
When you overspend on your credit card, you eventually run out of room. You can't print money in your basement to pay off the bank (unless you want a visit from the Secret Service). The United States government, however, issues its own currency. Most of the "debt" we owe is actually owed to ourselves—American citizens holding Treasury bonds.
Does this mean the debt doesn't matter? No.
But the fallacy is thinking that a $34 trillion debt means the country is "broke." A country with a printing press and a massive tax base isn't "broke" in the way a person is. The real danger of debt isn't a repo man coming for the Statue of Liberty; it's inflation. If the government prints too much to pay its bills, the dollars in your pocket buy less. It’s a hidden tax.
Also, consider "crowding out." When the government borrows massive amounts of money, it can push up interest rates for everyone else. That makes it harder for you to get a mortgage or for a small business to get a loan. It’s not a "bankruptcy" problem; it’s a "resource allocation" problem.
Rent Control: A Masterclass in Good Intentions Gone Wrong
If you want to find a topic where 95% of economists actually agree, it’s rent control. And yet, it’s one of the most popular policy ideas in big cities.
The logic seems sound: "Rents are too high, let's pass a law saying they can't go up."
Basically, it's a disaster.
When you cap rents, you kill the incentive for developers to build new apartments. Why would I spend $20 million building a complex if I can't charge market rates? Existing landlords also stop maintaining their buildings. If the rent is capped, why fix the leaky roof or the peeling paint? You’ve got a line of people waiting to move in anyway because the price is artificially low.
Assar Lindbeck, a Swedish economist, once famously said that rent control is the most effective way to destroy a city, other than bombing it. Look at San Francisco or New York. The people who have the rent-controlled apartments stay in them for 40 years, even if they don't need the space, while young families can't find anything because no new supply is being built.
The "fact" is that rent control protects a lucky few at the expense of everyone else. The "fallacy" is thinking it makes housing affordable.
The Zero-Sum Game Trap
Perhaps the most damaging of all economic facts and fallacies is the "Zero-Sum Game." This is the belief that for one person to get rich, someone else has to get poor.
If I have a bigger slice of the pie, your slice must be smaller.
👉 See also: Finding the routing number for TD Bank without the headache
In a world of voluntary exchange, this is almost never true. If I buy a smartphone for $800, I’m doing it because I value the phone more than the $800. The company sells it because they value the $800 more than the phone. We both walk away richer in our own estimation.
Wealth is created, not just moved around.
Since the Industrial Revolution, the total amount of global wealth has exploded. We aren't just fighting over the same gold coins that existed in 1700. Innovation, technology, and trade create new value. When Jeff Bezos gets billions of dollars, he didn't "steal" it from your bank account. He created a platform that changed how millions of people shop and how businesses operate. You can hate the guy, but you have to acknowledge that the "pie" got significantly bigger because of the service provided.
Comparative Advantage: Why You Shouldn't Do Everything
You’d think that if a country is the best at producing everything, it shouldn't trade with anyone. This is the "Self-Sufficiency Fallacy."
David Ricardo debunked this centuries ago with the theory of Comparative Advantage. Imagine a lawyer who is also the fastest typist in the world. Should the lawyer do their own typing?
No.
Even if they can type 150 words per minute, their time is worth $400 an hour when they’re practicing law. It’s better for them to hire a secretary who types 60 words per minute and pays them $25 an hour. The lawyer is "better" at both tasks, but they have a "comparative advantage" in law.
This is why trade works. Even if the US could manufacture every single plastic toy and t-shirt, it’s a waste of our time. We should be focusing on high-value things like software, aerospace, and medical tech, while letting other countries handle the lower-value stuff. When we try to "bring back every job," we’re actually making ourselves poorer by misusing our most valuable resource: time.
Incentives are Everything
Economist Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics, basically built his career on one idea: people respond to incentives.
Often, we pass laws and are shocked when people change their behavior to avoid them. Take "Cobra Effect" stories (even if some are apocryphal, the logic holds). In colonial India, the government was worried about venomous cobras, so they offered a bounty for every dead snake.
What happened? People started breeding cobras in their backyards to kill them and collect the money.
When the government figured it out and canceled the bounty, the breeders released the now-worthless snakes. The cobra population actually increased.
In the modern world, this happens with taxes. If you tax something heavily, people do less of it—or they find ways to hide it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it, often in ways that are inefficient or weird. You can't just look at the goal of a policy; you have to look at the incentives it creates for real, breathing humans.
📖 Related: Current USD to TRY Rate: Why the Lira Is Actually Holding Steady
How to Stop Falling for Economic Myths
It’s easy to get swept up in slogans. They're designed to be catchy. But real-world economics is about looking at the second and third-order effects of any action.
To navigate the world of economic facts and fallacies, you need to start asking yourself three specific questions whenever you hear a "common sense" financial claim:
- At what cost? Nothing is free. If a service is "free," who is paying for it, and what are they not buying because of it?
- Compared to what? If you want to change a policy, what is the alternative? Don't compare a flawed system to a perfect utopia; compare it to another real-world option.
- What happens next? If we pass this law today, how will people change their behavior tomorrow to get around it?
Actionable Insights for the Real World
- Stop watching the daily stock market movements as a health check for the economy. The market is a lead indicator of investor sentiment and corporate profits, not a direct reflection of how the average person is doing or how "good" the economy is.
- Audit your own "unseen" costs. When you're making a big career move or investment, don't just look at the potential gain. Look at the "Opportunity Cost"—the value of the next best thing you’re giving up.
- Diversify your information. If you only read economists who agree with your politics, you’re only getting half the story. Read Sowell if you’re a progressive; read Krugman if you’re a conservative. The truth usually sits somewhere in the uncomfortable middle.
- Watch for "Concentrated Benefits vs. Diffused Costs." This is why bad laws stay on the books. A sugar tariff might help 1,000 sugar farmers a lot (concentrated benefit), while costing 300 million Americans an extra $5 a year on groceries (diffused cost). The farmers will lobby hard for it; you won't lobby against it for $5. Recognizing this pattern helps you see why the system looks the way it does.