There has always been a major concern over sin in the world, especially from the religious point of view since the time when man (and woman) held his world in great mystery. What about the economics of sin?
Sin is not a term in economics because economic science sees itself to be "objective" and does not pass "value judgement" on the world (economists leave that to the priests). So long as sin is a product where there is a market, then the standard laws of supply and demand come in.
Sin may just be another term for addiction which causes a person to spin out of control and therefore a danger to society and himself, and that negative impact is sin.
Sin is therefore anything that may be self-destruct, for individual as well as society.
In the world of addiction, the economic laws says that the market will supply as much as there is demand - and the perennial demand that comes out of addiction is good for the market, as it will ensure that GDP growth will sustain. Will it?
Keynesian revelation stipulates that demand must be made effective with purchasing power, for that demand to be real. The addict knows that and he will go out and secure the power to purchase the addiction.
As he is likely to be out of the mainstream, in the case of petty addicts, then he is likely to engage in activities which his neighbours are likely to feel insecure about - so those activities are called crimes, and a professional gang called the police is hired to control him and, when nabbed, locked him away or teach him a lesson.
But if sin is in the mainstream of economic activities - as Rosa Luxemburg or Joan Robinson would say as in the case of the addiction for (unnatural) wealth - then the global economy could be gearing itself for a total disaster, such as the destruction of the natural environment in return for paper or electronic which is thought to be money. Would it?
The laws of economics say that when the natural environment is sufficiently sized down, the scarcity of supply will rise the market price for natural products so much that the demand for natural products will be drastically cut down. In time, artificial substitutes will be found, and the whole of mankind will then subsist on artificial materials - do we then get plastic people?
Interesting, because, then human beings will ease to be what we know human beings to be today - natural, pink and soft. Human beings, as Darwin will say, have evolved into what could be termed as post-homosapiens.
In the world of post-homosapiens, the world will be a barren concretised environment with its plastic leaves and fragrantless flowers. Post-humans exist, not wishing to die, aimlessly accumulating electronic digits for happiness. When they die, they will empty those digits into the pockets of the collectors called hospitals which pretend to cure, but in fact merely dispense.
The economics of sin is therefore quite dynamic, and could bring about a paradigm which post-human cannot imagine what humans do. Does it matter?