This whole semester I’ve looked at the spine of this book thinking it read, “Are Economists Basically Immortal?”, which is wrong I’ve learned, but added to more thought that I’ll add in a second. The main thing that I’ve learned from this reading and from Koch Scholars as a whole is that as Paul Heyne puts it in his Smithian section, “no one is in control.” (pg. 96) We go about our days doing things that satisfy our own needs and make choices based on that. The government does the same self serving actions, but they have no more control over the market than the average consumer. They can try to control it, but the economy is so much more complex than a car to steer. If it were something that could be restrained or collaborated to meet individual needs, that would have happened ages ago. Before Koch Scholars I was under the impression the economy was able to be fixed by the government. “All we need is more legislation on bad things,” I thought; but now I’m beginning to understand it better. No amount of parentalism will do much good. There will always be a need for objective economists like Paul Heyne who see through the heated, emotional debates and fallacies to “get the point”. As Chris Fawson explained at the beginning, economics is a study of human interaction, which is a field that continues as long as there are humans. And as other books have illustrated we have no reason to think that mankind won’t exist for a long time. The Christians and the Jews will continue their loan and trade disputes and government will be in a balance with free market for a very long time. As we’ve integrated historical references, from the Bible to other records, those economic principles can be seen throughout the ages. Are economists immoral? I’d say definitely not, though the immortal thing may have some potential.