Dialogue was a bit too elementary, though that is probably because I taught Econ 1 for over 2 decades. I think there are larger problems that were not discussed but should have been:
1. What is the cost of the total ignorance about economics by citizens in a "democracy"? If citizens, and their attitudes, remain trapped by the false "logic" of "common sense" and/or emotion, how can a society EVER transcend ignorance to increase economic welfare and rational decision-making? Answer --> It can't. So, for now, and as far as I can see into the future, the problem of applying "irrational" solutions to rational problems will NOT be solved efficiently. Simply put, we (as a society) are trapped as prisoners of our own myths (emotion and ignorance). Examples-- Rent controls help the poor. Appeals to populist slogans like "People above profits."
2. The "language" common folks (including most college grads) use to discuss and analyze economic choices contain non-sequiturs that doom us from a rational consensus. Consider the use of the word "exploitation." Usually mis-applied and mis-understood. Who is exploiting whom when person A buys a marriage ring for $13,000 for person B? When Joe buys an abstract painting from his neighbor for $400,000? When the Univ of Smartfolk pays 3 million to its head football coach, regardless he does/not produce a national champion?
Or take the word "fair." What is fair? Ever hear or read where a liberal can define the word? Every market transaction. If the buyer is winning, why did the seller, sell? Or "equal opportunity"? Can non-Indians legally operate casinos to capture revenues to reduce taxes while other racial/ethnic groups are prevented from the same activity to promote welfare of "their" citizens?
Or, consider trade between nations/states/cities. What economist has proven David Ricardo was wrong? If we only promote domestic trade and consumption, from whom should Wisconsin buy its oil or refined gasoline (it produces none)?
So much more, but as a simple comment, I'll suggest another book: The Economic Way of Thinking -- by Paul Heyne.
Finally, the issue of nuke power. Can anyone define the costs and risks, so that we might consider it as an alternative? How can risks of pollution from nuke waste be defined? Or, should we simply mandate that those who seek to develop/profit from nuclear power -- also sign an agreement with the force of law that those decision-makers MUST retire on the future city that the nation will build ON TOP of the nuclear waste dump. The risk of nuke pollution or an errant steam/nuke explosion will be born by those who decided to create more nuke power. And, it should also be stipulated that at least one child of each decision-maker must live on that city for 10 generations.
The division of labor produces great benefits . So should the negative consequences of stupid decisions. Those who make poor choices should be forced to endure the consequences of their decisions.
Dialogue was a bit too elementary, though that is probably because I taught Econ 1 for over 2 decades. I think there are larger problems that were not discussed but should have been:
1. What is the cost of the total ignorance about economics by citizens in a "democracy"? If citizens, and their attitudes, remain trapped by the false "logic" of "common sense" and/or emotion, how can a society EVER transcend ignorance to increase economic welfare and rational decision-making? Answer --> It can't. So, for now, and as far as I can see into the future, the problem of applying "irrational" solutions to rational problems will NOT be solved efficiently. Simply put, we (as a society) are trapped as prisoners of our own myths (emotion and ignorance). Examples-- Rent controls help the poor. Appeals to populist slogans like "People above profits."
2. The "language" common folks (including most college grads) use to discuss and analyze economic choices contain non-sequiturs that doom us from a rational consensus. Consider the use of the word "exploitation." Usually mis-applied and mis-understood. Who is exploiting whom when person A buys a marriage ring for $13,000 for person B? When Joe buys an abstract painting from his neighbor for $400,000? When the Univ of Smartfolk pays 3 million to its head football coach, regardless he does/not produce a national champion?
Or take the word "fair." What is fair? Ever hear or read where a liberal can define the word? Every market transaction. If the buyer is winning, why did the seller, sell? Or "equal opportunity"? Can non-Indians legally operate casinos to capture revenues to reduce taxes while other racial/ethnic groups are prevented from the same activity to promote welfare of "their" citizens?
Or, consider trade between nations/states/cities. What economist has proven David Ricardo was wrong? If we only promote domestic trade and consumption, from whom should Wisconsin buy its oil or refined gasoline (it produces none)?
So much more, but as a simple comment, I'll suggest another book: The Economic Way of Thinking -- by Paul Heyne.
Finally, the issue of nuke power. Can anyone define the costs and risks, so that we might consider it as an alternative? How can risks of pollution from nuke waste be defined? Or, should we simply mandate that those who seek to develop/profit from nuclear power -- also sign an agreement with the force of law that those decision-makers MUST retire on the future city that the nation will build ON TOP of the nuclear waste dump. The risk of nuke pollution or an errant steam/nuke explosion will be born by those who decided to create more nuke power. And, it should also be stipulated that at least one child of each decision-maker must live on that city for 10 generations.
The division of labor produces great benefits . So should the negative consequences of stupid decisions. Those who make poor choices should be forced to endure the consequences of their decisions.