About the only useful thing my economics degree taught me was that, in all decisions in life, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis.
Ever since the end of Medieval feudalism, and the writings of John Locke, we have understood the importance of being able to buy and sell one's own property, including books and watches, both for reasons of economics and liberty.
A conveyor belt of Think Tank pundits and allied operatives poured into the TV studios, and together they built a fortress around Mrs. Thatcher's memory that was rooted in theories about economics. They did this because economics is the only language that wonks understand.
Since the inauguration of Mr. Lee Myung-bak, I was very much disappointed with his politics and policies. Not only in economics, but also in many social and political issues, he made many mistakes.
Many of my students assume that government protection is the only thing ensuring decent wages for most American workers. But basic economics shows that competition between employers for workers can be very effective at preventing businesses from misbehaving.
We would, however, perform an injustice to the bourgeois women's rights movement if we would regard it as solely motivated by economics. No, this movement also contains a more profound spiritual and moral aspect.
For 30 years I've been schooled in everything from government, and economics, to medicine and international relations. But don't be impressed. Someone once said being a general assignment reporter simply means you are equally ignorant about most everything. In other words, I know a little about a lot.
First rule of Economics 101: our desires are insatiable. Second rule: we can stomach only three Big Macs at a time.
Narrative drives most of economics. Everything seems to be part of a story, and how that story is told often leads to critical error.
The idea of applying psychology or behavioural sciences to communication is not a new one. It's very old behavioural economics. If it gives you some additional insights - so be it.
People want to think of economics as a natural science, like physics, with the comforting reliability of simple-to-understand theories like F=MA. Unfortunately, it isn't. Economics is a social science, and the so-called theories are really social and moral constructs.
My interest in economics just basically comes because I think I'm a curious person, and I'm interested in how the world works.
Classical economics values things by seeing how much someone will pay for them. But this is where classical economics is wrong. What it fails to account for are all the 'externalities' - the services people regard as free goods: pollination services, flood protection, climate regulation, soil stabilization, carbon sequestration.
In the world of traditional economics, it shouldn't matter whether you use an opt-in or opt-out system. So long as the costs of registering as a donor or a nondonor are low, the results should be similar. But many findings of behavioral economics show that tiny disparities in such rules can make a big difference.