I was reading the above article based on the question, “Why are economics professors not billionaire”? Economics works on the premise that there is scarcity and hence resource has to be rationed. The economics professors look to manage what is. They don’t think about abundance or possibilities.
The article talks about how management is a great skill to have. But the world can not go forward with managers. In last 300 years, innovators, inventors, and adventurers that have changed the world with discoveries. Another point which actually was beautifully framed in the article asks schools to teach about money and not economics. I kind of agree with the idea about students learning about money. However, students must also know how the distribution of scarce resources in our society works.
Why does the author of article think economic research is futile?
The reasonable point raised is – “The problem of poverty will never be solved by money”. Which is a completely valid point in a capitalist society. More money will only result in inflation and the poverty will square back to remain prevalent. The reasoning simply says that entrepreneurs,(and not economists) might develop means to remove poverty, and a means of best distribution of scarce resource.
The article is a good read. It motivates one to make money and explains the fact that thinking outside the box of scarcity is what creates a rich individual. The relation between economic reports and individual wealth is denied by the author. Which I believe is true for a country of innovators, where economic theories based on limited resources is denied. However, since the writeup focuses on individuals and not society as a whole, it makes sense to bring up such ideas. All in all, I like the ideas presented in the article. Have a good read!