I commented in another thread that the science of economics is changing beneath our feet. The subject article provides some examples of things that will almost certainly change.
The Broken Window Fallacy, as a warning to think clearly about events that affect the economy, will likely last forever. However, the idea that “Resources in an economy are scarce” probably will not. The reason is that scarcity as envisioned here is a hopelessly esoteric concept.
To illustrate, it may be true that a society sometimes wants more resources than it has, but it is also true that technology and process improvement have the almost unlimited ability to extend the available stock of resources. The concept of abundance is at least as fundamental and significant in this respect as the concept of scarcity.
Similarly, the idea that “both parties benefit” from voluntary exchange is certainly true, but it is also true that some voluntary exchanges harm one or both parties or even society. For example, a drunk who buys alcohol may be said to benefit because that is what he wanted, but if he misses a day of work due to hangover, his quantum of production is lost.
Again, the principle of comparative advantage explains why free trade in international markets can be desirable, but it is not very helpful to know that something can be good when it also can be bad. Free trade does not necessarily lead to an increase of currency in the national account, nor to full employment.
It is certainly true that “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” But the reasons for that arise from the laws of physics, especially the law of entropy.