The power and problem of sound economic thinking is the fact that the economy, on the face of it, seems to work in one way but actually works in another. Simply put, the untrained eye believes it sees what isn't there. The great power of #economics is to reveal the true processes

and mechanisms that cause the phenomena we observe and experience, to explain what is going on and thus to support the formation of proper expectations in the place of economic illusions and mysticism. This is also economics' huge problem, since it uncovers the empty wishful

thinking that underlies the grand promises of political reformers. It thus shows the impossibility of the promises made, thereby making no friends among the powerful or among those eager to believe. Truth, it appears, has few friends, even though a proper understanding for

economic processes would in effect facilitate some political aims while helping us avoid attempting the impossible. Knowledge is hardly the problem, but knowledge is treason in an empire of lies. The status and glory of the powerful is built on our ever increasing demand for

a powerful hand to forcefully "fix" the problems in the world. Economics reveals the impossibility of such a "solution," and thus directly undermines the position of the powerful, who feed the myth, and calls for an awakening among the romantics who wish to believe in such power.

No wonder the powerful at the same time make use of, when they benefit, and ridicule #economics. No wonder romantics join in the chorus of economists being cold-hearted. Being called the "dismal science," as often repeated, is ignorantly assumed to be a negative. But, in fact,

economics was dismissed as "dismal" for the reason that it considers each individual person equal from the point of view of economic processes and economic law. Even slaves, which is why it earned the epithet "dismal science." Imagine the extent of ignorance: all those romantic,

good-hearted people who dismiss economics for being a "dismal science" - because it tells the truth, and originally being called "dismal" because it refused to subject the study of the economy, the formulation of economic laws, to racist dogma! Considering this history, how can

one, as an economist, not be proud of the discipline's history of speaking truth to power and challenging arbitrary beliefs because, economically, each individual is equally an economic actor benefitting from and contributing to the economic organism.

Does this mean one must also condone or support the outcome or current state of economic processes. Of course not. The specific outcomes of economic mechanisms depend not on applications of economic laws, which are universal, but on specific institutional contexts. Those

institutions shape the outcome and are the causes of the injustice, inequality, and whatever other problems we observe in the present. We can alleviate those problems, or do away with them altogether, by tweaking the institutional setting so that it produces just outcomes. The

only way to do this is to first recognize the universal applicability of economic laws, then utilize this knowledge to form proper and just institutions or have them emerge spontaneously. To attempt to shape society through political means that directly contradict economic laws

is not only sure to fail, but causes harm, injustice. This is ultimately a road to serfdom, which we choose to travel only if we are ignorant of economics and, worse, pride ourselves of our economic illiteracy. Learning sound economics reveals the powerlessness of the powerful.