In a bus to NYC early in January 2005, I met this gorgeous girl who was reading a course in Economics. The textbook was open on a praise of the Fed and its role in regulating the National Economy, with an opposing page in a special color denoting higher science, that justified this role based on one macroeconomic equation by Keynes. It was too tempting, so I started a conversation.
It so happens this girl was not at all an economics major or minor.
She was just a high-schooler studying acting,
and had this compulsory course in
economics so as to pursue her studies.
Of course she had never heard of a dissident point of view in economics.
Textbooks wouldn't present as well-established science
what is but a questionable opinion, or worse, an intellectual fraud,
She looked like she was not bright enough
to grasp the nature of the evil she's facing, or to care about it,
but she was not stupid enough to believe
that this stuff was any good for her personally.
It was just a chore she had to go through,
and she didn't really care for it.
Still, the propaganda will leave scars, and in due time,
she will believe enough of it to vote with the crowd.
And who cares if she doesn't?
Whichever actress will spend all her time to become the next superstar
will have learnt all this fake economics as the One Obvious Truth,
and will propagate it throughout her work.
Whatever the public sees will be molded by these compulsory beliefs.
Afterism of the day.
As for me, I wasn't bright enough to hit on her successfully.
Here's what I should have asked her:
Can you discuss this course with me like you're fully convinced
of the truth, relevance and utter obviousness of these economic theories?
Now can you discuss it with me
like you cannot figure out what it really means,
but it smells to you like it's a huge intellectual fraud?
Which was the more natural stance to you?
Getting her to play, and to play with me.
Letting her express herself,
and at the same time setting her in the right direction.
I'll have to remember that next time.