Economic Ways Of Thinking

My conceptions of economics are not well formulated or unambiguous. I know little about the subject and what I do know stems from popular culture. Nevertheless, before reading “The Economic Ways of Thinking” I scribbled my definition, “economics: the study of money and what people do with it.” My perception of economists likened the Duke brothers of “Trading Places;” impersonal, rich, and a bit evil. I considered it an economist’s intention to understand a market, including its patterns and shortfalls, to reap profit. However, I interpreted Heyne’s (et al) “economics” to hinge on the interactions between people and the cooperation required to achieve flow within a system. Contrary to my own definition, “The Economic Way of Thinking” defines economics as “a theory of choice and its unintended consequences” (2002, pg. 11). This approach is far more holistic and humanitarian than my expectations. Furthermore, the position seems akin to anthropologic studies rather than greed.

I was already familiar with the economic concept of cost-benefit analysis prior to reading this excerpt. This vague understanding is what led to my assertion that economic values correspond with self-serving natures at the expense of others. In relation, the calculating mindset required to value every person interaction diverges from my
Anthropology and economics both attempt to explain human behavior through a mathematical or scientific process. Anthropologists study culture through scientific methods, just as economists study individuals’ choices and their outreaching effects. Both fields of study rely heavily on observation rather than experimentation. Academics expand these observations into ways of understanding a society. Just as an anthropologist may explain complex religious and communal practices, an economist can explain the flow of