… is from page 317 of the late University of Washington economist Paul Heyne‘s undated and previously unpublished manuscript titled “Teaching Economics By Telling Stories,” as it appears in the 2008 collection of Heyne’s writings, “Are Economists Basically Immoral?” and Other Essays on Economics, Ethics, and Religion (Geoffrey Brennan and A.M.C. Waterman, eds.) [original emphasis]:
Moreover, social systems that impinge on us daily in important ways seem threatening when we don’t know how they work. They generate alienation and anxiety. So the best reason for anyone to learn economics is that a knowledge of how markets work empowers the knower. Economic understanding is a powerful antidote to the sense of impotence that comes from supposing that “they” must be in control because “we” are not.
DBx: Yep. Learning sound economics, even if only ECON 101, outfits you with the intellectual equivalent of x-ray-vision glasses: You are able to see forces and consequences that are invisible to people who know little or no economics.
But there’s a downside. (How could there not be? Economics also teaches that there are no solutions, only trade-offs.) Seeing forces and consequences that other people don’t, you naturally want to tell people – often to warn them for their own good – about what you see. But because most of the people with whom you share your econ-vision knowledge do not see what you see, those people think that you’re either a kook or a mercenary liar. Nevertheless, it’s far better to be informed and knowledgeable than to be blind and ignorant.
