I really enjoyed reading your essay, Carson. It was concise and to the point, without fluff. You had a couple of great opinions throughout. Your introduction was a nice abstraction of the entire reading, which is something I struggle with.

“Taken together, we can see the immense productive power available through specialization and innovation, neither of which would be possible without voluntary exchange” (p. 60, 2016).

I like this quote because of what he said about voluntary exchange. It’s true, as I stated earlier, that specialization and innovation are important for production, but their power would diminish tremendously if not for voluntary exchange. An individual’s right to enter an exchange with whomever he/she sees fit is crucial. People specialize and innovate not only to improve society but to accrue wealth which they can in turn use in an exchange of their own.

I like what you said here. I didn’t think about how voluntary exchange precedes specialization. I suppose I just figured a monetary medium was the primary facilitator that allows that specialization. It is so necessary to be willing to even trade to allow specialization. When we, as a society, decide to specialize, we are inadvertently investing and banking on the economy and market. Entrepreneurs, consumers, and producers are effectively relying on the market and economies stability to provide enough voluntary exchanges, which will allow specialization to be an actual option rather than a hyper-situational one. This puts the onus on voluntary exchange through a lens I had not considered: that of a societal need that must be met. The more we engage with the market and economy, the better it may fluctuate and allow different kinds of specializations to appear.

You had some great things to say when it comes to Creative Destruction.

It perfectly encapsulates how the market is ever-changing through new innovation that pops up and renders old innovation obsolete. It’s a sort of “race to the top” but the top is nowhere in sight.

I like what you said here. Coming from the architecture field, seeing or hearing these sorts of opposing platitudes does not hit me with deep profundity, but it perfectly encapsulates the market. In particular, I agree with your interpretation that, in its Creative Destruction, the "race to the top" becomes one without a top.

That said, I think this also speaks to the greater chances we have at success in the market than we may think. If the "top" is always changing and evolving, we could safely assume the inverse. Just like if no price is right, every price is right. Then, if nowhere is at the top, anywhere can be at the top.

This is actually a good thing to some degree, as this level of instability means that regardless of our finances, intelligence level, or year on earth, we can potentially discover our own way to the "top." On some level, this naturally evens the playing field.

You get further into this later in your essay. When you mention Schumpeter’s quote.

“Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary” (Schumpeter, p. 82, 1962).

This quote is equally as profound to creative destruction in my eyes. Capitalism is a mechanism for economic growth and the entrepreneurs that participate are the vessels that push and pull the market in different ways in response to what others are doing. In that sense, capitalism can never be stationary because the very individuals that are influencing the markets and responding to market changes are never stationary

I agree that the quote is really profound. That push and pull of the market is what causes it to never be stationary. That tide, so to speak, of the market is one that some entrepreneurs could potentially capitalize on. It is the natural evening I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, you concisely explained Opportunity Cost nicely. I have to say I liked what you brought to this reading.