I disliked economics in college. I agreed with the claim that the subject was dismal.
And then I started to read economics books and articles on my own, and I discovered a practical use for it.
I’m sure you’ve heard sometime in your life the statement “If it helps only one person (or the common variation if it saves only one life), it will have been worth it.” This is always said in an attempt to end all further debate on the subject and usually is offered as an argument to continue whatever “it” is – typically spending money on the speaker’s pet project. Once upon a time, I used to nod my head and give the matter no further thought.
Economics changed that.
Now when that line of argument is used, I respond with “No, you have to look at other courses of action (or ways of spending money) and choose an option or mix of options that helps (or saves) the most people. ” In other words, if you spend a million dollars to save just one life, but there are other ways to spend a million that save more than one life, then no, all things being equal, it wasn’t worth it, it was a mistake.
One word of warning – you’re not likely to change the person’s mind when you go this route. I’d leave off the mistake part if I were you, and just get to them to think about better ways. And don’t mention the economics angle – instead tell them about the Zen of chess and how the way to win is always make the best possible move. They might actually see it your way.
People want to get better at chess, or think about how they can apply game related insights to their lives. They don’t want anything to do with economics, which is forever telling them they have can’t have it all but must make difficult choices. You can’t win at economics, but you can win at chess, and that makes all the difference in persuading people.
