@CCP_Phantom You do realise that these first two statements are not necessarily connected, nor balanced? In fact, it’s something your former economist pointed out as something known as a derivate of system risk variables.
Precisely because supply and demand is not a natural state, but a behavioural derivative as well as a mechanically bound interaction. Fun tidbit, the latter is never safe from the former. Wasn’t one of the golden rules “never underestimate the apparent madness of eve players and their capacity for organisation”? That was inspired not just by a learning curve, but by real world science.
By the way, did you know that large organisations have already decided to bypass the mechanical boundaries for these interactions? Plex isn’t just a currency, but also an indicator of something which happens in the real world when standard currencies start losing their intangible and time related values. The whales switch to high value and/or high speed commodities. Not merely as market, but as mechanism, even garantee actor for other transactions.
There’s this thing called economies of scale and there’s this thing called behavioural pathology of economic interaction. Please do not try to spin off market mechanisms as naturally correcting, Alan Greenspan might want to have a word on that with you 
(he wrote an entire book apologising for exactly that opinion and the global damages it causes) Also please do not try to pass it it off as an interaction within a closed environment. It’s anything but CCP opted to not make it so.
Also, please never underestimate the nature or the weight of what is known as perception problems. Ever heard of the case of the too expensive fancy vacuum cleaner? There’s an opposite of that on the behavioural scale as well
Aside of that, I would think that CCP was able to learn that perception problems carry a heavier weight than real problems. We could have a historic as well as a business discussion on this, but for the limits of this topic that would go too far down the sideroads.
Suffice to say that handling perception problems is tricky because humans in layered organisations tend to produce measures which underestimate depth of perspective as well as emotional energy among those suffering from or signalling the perception problems in question. Whether it’s a newsletter, word of mouth, a blog post, this is today’s butterfly (so that’s where it went after dying in EVE, anyway) which can only be guided ahead of the curve. Not managed after or during.
Now, be honest, CCP does not keep its hands out of it 
Not only have there been interventions, you are also an integral part of it. Simply put: CCP does not stand outside of the mix, on the contrary. Both as actor, participant and influencer. And beneficiary. Even if there had never been any interventions nor were there ever going to be, CCP has its hands in it. By default it is first and last finger in and on it.
If I may, I am curious whether this was just a courtesy response to a thread on a rather prevalent topic, or whether your statements are actually in line with or based on CCP’s policies. The vision formulated a few years back I get. But this is not the same thing.
The first is naturally appreciated, although it would obviously be nice to see more of it. Yes, I am aware of the risks, but if we must have inward bound community interactions, more crossing the river adds health to the dynamic.
The second would be troublesome.
Because it would signal a presence of policies fundamentally incapable from the venture’s vision by means of game design objectives in reconciling the mechanical and fiscal perspectives with the underlying realities of not just those pesky little humans inside their little pressure cooker, but economic science specifically. And yes, also in relation to game theory and implications of both for game design.
I fully realise that the above will hit home in places, just like elsewhere it won’t. But also realise this: todays markets in New Eden aren’t just a game in their own right. They’ve become something subtly yet significantly different, for CCP and its customers.
While the feedback in this thread is indicative of limited and specific feedback perspectives, it is not indicative of how much further groups of customers have gone in terms of mapping things out than - if that second perspective were to be correct - CCP themselves have.
That is what is known as an innate system vulnerability without means to ward against effects. Root cause of an old trauma, chasing lessons learnt after the ripples. The oldies will remember with a hint or two.
It’s also something which some people like because it allows them to create a cycle of collapse and shifting of costs without those who guard and those who depend on the system able to protect themselves from. I was in Iceland when such people made such decisions, I recognise not just the mindset, but the effects of the same decisions in New Eden.
Now here’s the question that truly matters: who pays the piper in such a cycle? The ones who are systemic beneficiaries, wards as well as connected users. Now depending on whether CCP still remembers the warnings of its own former economists and depending on whether some CCPians can still remember, that isn’t merely customers. It includes CCP to an interesting degree which will require smart yet vulnerable bookkeeping. And we all know how interesting these two years are.
