If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process.

We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question.

The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You can make an economic argument for the south, but it's still a stretch) Fundamentally it's a moral/social/political question, that has tremendous economic effects.

----

I'd actually argue the contrary. There are almost no "economic" arguments when it comes to regulation. Any argument worth having is fundamentally moral or social.

* How much taxation is "fair"

* What level of economic inequality violates "justice"

So am I. The decision making process that goes into "social/political" things is pretty much economic.

> We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm.

Social/political decision making is aggregating individual efforts to maximize the world's alignment with each individual's own preferences.

There's no difference between this and economic decision making.

> It's a moral question.

"Morality" is just one subset of personal preferences against which people act to optimize. The distinction between it and other subsets of preferences (like "aesthetics", etc.) is arbitrary.