Economics is far from a “dismal science“. It’s a great way to understand the world because it measures the one thing that’s more meaningful than any survey or election outcome could ever hope to be: what people do with their money.
Another great thing about economics is that it helps you figure out what is actually worth worrying about while the media labels everything a “CRISIS!!!!!” Here are some crises that aren’t really: health care, oil, and income inequality (why these aren’t troubling is something I hope to talk about in future posts).
One more great thing is when your favorite economics blog makes several posts in a row that feature sharp econ-wit:
I’m in the camp whose members - finding nothing especially magical, glorious, magnanimous, informed, or trustworthy about the state or political actions - hold that hiring the state to forcibly stop people from patronizing competitors at mutually agreeable prices is no different morally than hiring a street gang or your brother-in-law to do the same. — Misbehaving Amazon? Or Misbehaving State?
Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside? — What to Expect When You’re Free Trading
Commenters: I’m working on some future economics posts, so if there’s any topic related to economics/money/technology you’d like me to talk about say so in the comments. Some examples would be: “Wasn’t Adam Smith just an apologists for business interests?” or “Why aren’t money and wealth considered the same thing?” or “If econ is so great, why did my college econ class suck so bad?”
2 Comments ↓
As an economics teacher, it’s kind of nice to come across that kind of headline for a blog post! I agree economics doesn’t have to be a dismal science. In fact, a flurry of populist books (i.e. Freakonomics) have shown how economics can apply to everything from prostitution to price of petrol
Here’s a question: Do you ever think the dire predictions of T.Malthus (i.e. overpopulation and loss of resources) will come true?
Best,
Tejvan
http://www.economicshelp.org
Hi Tejvan,
Thomas Malthus wrote in 1798 that population growth would outstrip resources and plunge the world back into the stone age. Latter day Malthusian Paul Ehrlich predicted in his 1968 book The Population Bomb that overpopulation would cause huge famines by the 1980’s.
…Still waiting for that famine, it might help out with the growing problem with obesity. So, yeah, I’m not too worried about the world ever having too many people and not enough resources.
One reason I’m not worried is that we have more people than ever but the world is more wealthy (in real quality of life terms) than ever (why this is would be a topic for a whole post). I would rather be a poor American today with plenty of internet and penicillin than a king from 200 years ago. Another reason is that people have been predicting overpopulation doom and gloom forever and it hasn’t happened yet. In fact, the more developed a nation is the closer it comes to “replacement” reproduction rates, and in fact many developed nations are below “replacement” now.
See also: The famous wager between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich on population growth and resource prices.