hard to make it otherwise. I realize that pointing out
the failure of development
aid and then arguing for more of it is like Yogi Berra criticizing a restaurant for
having bad food
and small portions. Still, things become better when there is an
overwhelming political will to make them better. That is bigger than economics.
Epilogue
Life in 2050: Seven Questions
E
conomics can help us to understand and improve an imperfect world. In the
end, though, it is just a set of tools. We must decide how to use them. Economics
does not foreordain the future any more than the laws of physics made it
inevitable that we would explore the moon.
Physics made it possible; humans
chose to do it—in large part by devoting resources that might have been spent
elsewhere. John F. Kennedy did not alter the laws of physics when he declared
that the United States
would put a man on the moon; he merely set a goal that
required good science to get there. Economics is no different. If we are to make
the best use of these tools, we ought to think about where we are trying to go.
We must
decide what our priorities are, what tradeoffs we are willing to make,
what outcomes we are or are not willing to accept. To paraphrase economic
historian and Nobel laureate Robert Fogel, we must first define the “good life”
before economics can help us get there. Here
are seven questions worth
pondering about life in 2050, not for the sake of predicting the future, but
because the decisions that we make now will affect how we live then.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: