This is just another conservative economic screed, published under the pretense of teaching you what economic "truths" are. Don't buy it.

"The truth is, contrary to popular belief, that the entire world has been getting vastly more wealthy for the past two hundred years." True on its face, although I would question the "vastly" part. But this statement ignores the changes in wealth creation over time, particularly the time period most relevant today. For the last 40 years almost all of the wealth creation in the US has gone to the richest 1% of Americans. So while wealth grows, it does not grow much for the vast majority of people. Also the author uses a time period of 1820-2015 to show that poverty has declined. That is a really poor metric if you are talking about today's economy. The "truth" is that most of that drop in poverty, in the US anyway, has occurred since the end of WWII, and it was mostly accomplished through government programs to help the poor and grow the middle class.

"Money is not Wealth". I beg to differ. "Money" in the classical sense is strictly a medium of exchange. It provides opportunity to purchase the "wealth" that the author says is real wealth. If you have more money than your neighbor, you are able to purchase more "real" wealth. So it is effectively just as much wealth as the physical objects themselves. The three richest Americans own as much wealth as the lowest earning half of all Americans. Do you really want to say that their vast holdings in equities and bonds and multiple other investment vehicles are not wealth?

Then the author misrepresents the value of government actions to manage the economy.

Minimum wage: The author cites a couple of articles about the negative consequences of raising the minimum wage. But there have been conflicting studies on this subject for the last 40 years (here's one counter article: https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/FactSheet-RaisingTheMinimumWageIsGoodForWorkers,Businesses,andTheEconomy-FINAL.pdf). Studies have gone both ways, but most negative effects identified by conservative economists are short-term. And almost all of them ignore the multiplier effect of putting money in the hands of people who need it. In addition, all such studies ignore the negative externalities of not paying people enough to support their families - it is unconscionable that we have to pay tax dollars to workers in the form of food stamps and Medicaid to full-time Walmart workers.

You want to propose an economic principle, try this one: The full cost of producing a good or service should be borne by either the producer or consumer of the good or service. This principle actually fits nicely with the minimum wage.

Next, the author eschews price controls. Why, I can't fathom, as price controls haven't been an issue since Nixon tried them.

Then the author slams rent controls as the reason there is no growth in low-income housing in areas where it is in effect. This is a classic example of the misapplication of correlation to causation. Rent controls are fairly rare, and where they do exist it is because there is little low-income housing, not the other way around. Rent controls are mandated in areas where prices are already high because there is no low income housing or construction. It is not the case that prices were affordable and rent controls were enacted and prices shot up. That is not how it works.

Sorry, but the points the author made are not "TRUTHS". They are the spin, the propaganda, that could come straight out of the Heritage Foundation. They are simply the point of view of this author and other conservatives like Michael Busler. Do not be taught these "truths".