Economically Speaking
By Jake Schulz
I recently had a discussion with my girlfriend about what I considered to be the flaws in studying economics. She had completed an economics course at Princeton and she explained to me why I was completely wrong on all counts. She was correct of course, because, according to the first law of our relationship, she is always right and I am always wrong, unless of course my opinion happens to be the same as hers.

Having said this, I will now explain to you, good residents of Amherst, why the study of economics is both futile and unconscionably evil. First of all, it is complete guess work; economists pretty much just sit around in their plush offices and take random stabs at what's about to happen with the economy. If you watch TV-like I do-then you probably just skip over the channels where those boring economists are talking about how "things" will happen. At which point they clarify by explaining how those "things" will be either good, bad, or goodly bad. I continue flipping in search of the 24-hour tae bo station which your brain has logically concluded must exist.

But back to the point: these economists not only guess all the time, but their guesses also differ from the guesses of the other economist people. I find this to be a tad strange since all economists are essentially the same person, whose name happens to be Tad Hutchins. So in essence, Tad is always arguing with Tad.

These economists argue forever, trying to "solve some problem" which, in my opinion, really isn't important. If they were sitting around attempting to genetically engineer a new breed of soldier that never gets tired and hates everyone who isn't named Thurston Howell III, then I would be the first one to applaud their efforts, but guess what? They're not. They bicker forever and in the end come back to the same place where they started.

Second, I would like to point out that even if one could predict economic trends-which I believe I conclusively refuted in the last paragraph-that knowledge is useless. For example, let's say that Joe Economy predicts that the Asian market is about to collapse because of a sudden depletion of foreign capital due to the Fogerty principle, which tells us that everything stinks. First of all, shut up you communist bastard. Furthermore, if I had managed to understand a word Joe just said I would have seen right through his supposedly sound argument to the underlying principle of his statement. Would have, but didn't.

Besides, as long as the Po River still flows into the Chu basin, I could care less about any "crisis." I think I speak for all members of the human race when I say this. Until the day arrives where Tad and Joe and all their little postulations agree with each other and the world I'll stand by my opinion. And in the meantime, you can leave, my friend, and take your bastard science, your crack pot study of economics, with you.

Jake Schulz is a member of the Class of 2002.

Issue 06, Submitted 2000-10-17 21:02:38