Great, so the best-selling economics textbook
in the country is by N. Gregory Mankiw.
It's based on these 10 Principles of Economics.
Here they are. I'm not going to read them for you, just take my word for it
that you need a PhD in economics to understand these. 
Fortunately I have one... and I have taken it upon myself 
to translate these principles for the uninitiated. 
Let's begin by separating them into the first seven principles, which 
are microeconomics, and the last three, which are macroeconomics...
the difference of course being that microeconomists 
are people who are wrong about specific things...
...and macroeconomists are wrong about things in general. 
[This is a paraphrase of P.J. O'Rourke.]
The macroeconomic principles all have the exact same 
translation, namely "Blah blah blah". 
As proof I should only remind you that macroeconomists have
successfully predicted 9 out of the last 5 recessions...
…and as further proof we can now go up one font size. As Einstein said, 
"Everything should be as simple as possible, if not simpler."
Okay, back to microeconomics. 
The first one, "People face tradeoffs".
Translation: "Choices are bad." 
This is a simple syllogism: Tradeoffs are bad; every time you 
have a choice you have a tradeoff; therefore choices are bad.
If you don't understand that, look at Principle #2, 
"The cost of something is what you give up to get it." 
Translation: "Choices are really bad." 
Let me just give you a simple example of this. Let's say 
someone offers you a Snickers bar that you value at $1. 
So your economic profit in this case is the Snickers bar 
minus the cost of what you give up to get it, which is nothing...
...your economic profit is $1. 
Now, somebody offers you a choice between a Snickers bar, which
you value at $1, and some M&Ms, which you value at $0.70. 
Now your economic profit is the $1 minus the $0.70: only $0.30. 
You begin to see why choices are bad. 
The worst possible situation, in fact, would be someone offering
you a choice between a Snickers bar... and an identical Snickers bar.
Now, people who are not trained in economics might think that 
that's no different from being offered one Snickers bar... 
...but that sort of sloppy thinking will
never get you a tenure-track position. 
Great, let's simplify this: Choices are bad, really bad. 
If you don't understand why choices 
are bad, you're probably stupid. 
Next principle: "Rational people think at the margin."
Translation: "People are stupid."
Now, it is immediately obvious to the most casual observer with the
meanest intelligence that people do not think at the margin. 
Nobody goes to a grocery store and says "I'm going to buy an orange, 
I'm going to buy another orange, I'm going to buy another orange." 
But if people don't think at the margin, and if as Mankiw says 
rational people do think at the margin...
...we are led to a most unhappy conclusion: 
People are not rational. 
People, in other words, are stupid. 
But don't fear for the fate of humanity yet. Take a look at 
the next principle: "People respond to incentives." 
Now the dictionary says that "incentive" is a noun that means
"something that influences to action, synonym 'motive'." 
So what Mankiw is saying here is 
that people are motivated by motives...
...or that they are influenced to action by 
things that influence them to action. 
Now, you might think this is a bit like saying 
that tautologies are tautological, right? 
I mean, people would have to be pretty stupid 
to be unmotivated by motives... 
...or to be influenced to inaction by things 
that influence them to action, right?
But remember Principle #3, "People are stupid."
Hence the need for Principle #4 to convince
us that "People aren't that stupid." 
Great, so simplifying again, let's move on to 
free trade, our favorite topic. 
Principle #5, "Trade can make everyone better off".
Translation: "Trade can make everyone worse off." 
I have a proof that will blow your mind 
of this fact. Here we go: 
Compare the following two statements. One is "Trade can make everyone 
better off", the other is "Trade will make everyone better off". 
If you had to choose between those it's no contest, right? 
Claim #2 is better. But Mankiw uses Claim #1.
And there's only one explanation: 
Claim #2 has to be wrong. 
In other words, trade can make some people worse off, and it's just a
hop, skip, and a jump from there to "Trade can make everyone worse off."
Some people apparently didn't like this deconstructive proof, 
or destructive proof, they wanted a constructive proof... 
...so I added this footnote with the details. 
Now notice the final two here, "Governments are stupid" 
and "Governments aren't that stupid"...
...follow immediately from
Principle #5 and its translation. 
If trade can make everyone better off, 
what the heck do we need government for? 
But if trade can make everyone worse off, we better 
have a government around to stop people from trading.
Here are the principles of economics, translated. 
And there is my website, standupeconomist.com. 
Thank you for your time.
