fbpx

Visual #6: Modern “Translation” of Bastiat

In his column “After the Horror” (New York Times, Sept. 14, 2001), [Paul Krugman, Princeton University economist] says, “Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack . . . could do some economic good.” He suggests that the destruction will stimulate the economy through business investment in rebuilding.

We know this has to be fishy just by asking: Would there have been even greater “economic good” had the terrorists succeeded in destroying buildings in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and all other major cities? Of course, you and I know that is utter nonsense. Property destruction always lowers the wealth of a nation. I hope one of Krugman’s students asks him, “If property destruction is good for the economy, why aren’t Beirut and Belfast boom towns?

Walter Williams,

George Mason University economist

Top 5 Econ Lessons For Your Classroom

By Jamie Wagner, Professor and Economics Teaching Fellow with the Foundation for Teaching Economics and an Associate Professor at the…

Teachers Learn About the Tradeoffs of Renewable Energy Future

Amanda Stiglbauer, FTE mentor teacher, summarizes FTE’s conference on the tradeoffs associated with renewable energy. This special topic conference, held…

A Simple Activity To Explain A Change in Demand vs A Change in Quantity Demanded

Jamie Wagner is a Professor and Teaching Fellow with the Foundation for Teaching Economics as well as an Associate Professor…