We're going round and round on some of this. I'm aware that economists have a model for everything, especially the more recent economists. So there's likely an economist somewhere who's modelled what would happen if dinosaurs returned and took over the planet. I believe that model posits a new kind of economic system called "Dinotopia."

Again, I have no problem with the modelling of all possible situations, and I'm sure economists somewhere have studied, as you say, monopolies, ads, and other drawbacks of capitalism. I've got no problem with that.

The reason I'm writing these articles on economics is to counter what I perceive to be the dominant trend in economics, which is to downplay those drawbacks and to call, on scientistic grounds, for more "deregulation" than is advisable, as though capitalism were largely self-regulating. Instead, pure capitalism is self-destructive, as I believe Keynes and perhaps Schumpeter said.

You say no economist advocates for laissez-faire, but that depends on what that term means. There are degrees of deregulation. I could be wrong on this, of course, but there seems to be no decisive way to tell what the economic consensus is on the merits and demerits of capitalism. So it's a judgment call. You have more inside info on this than I do, but you're also more invested in the discipline. So maybe the truth is in the middle?

Yes, it's methodological individualism. No, I don't think all social characteristics are mere sums of their parts, reducing to the total of the decisions of each individual in the group (as though these things could be so easily added). Some voices are so loud that they become part of the environment for many other individuals, which makes nonsense of the legal conceit that corporations are individual persons. Google and Facebook are just more individuals whose opinions contribute like the others to the aggregate? No, that becomes an abuse of language. At some point, the added pebbles become a mound, and the mound isn't just a big pebble.