If you spend enough time observing politics, you will inevitably stumble upon someone claiming that economics is not a science. It is almost always followed with an argument in favor of something that contradicts an economic principle. Now, as convenient as it might be if we could simply turn off gravity, we cannot choose which laws of science we’d like to abide by. And contrary to what some may say, economics is in fact, a science. For those inclined to believe otherwise, it helps to clarify this if we compare it to something universally accepted in the science community; energy.
For example, when we think of the difference between hot and cold, what we’re really talking about is the level of heat energy present. Cold is simply the natural state. It is the heat we measure, and if we want to change the temperature, we either add or subtract some aspect of it. Likewise, darkness is the natural state in the absence of light, and when we want to change it, we add visible light.
When we look at the science of economics, the heat we measure is undoubtedly prosperity. Just like how cold is the absence of heat, poverty is simply the natural state of things in the absence of prosperity. If we take a group of individuals and place them on an island, their starting point would be a state of abject poverty. To change this requires the addition of an observable amount of prosperity.
The question then becomes how do we add prosperity?
Just as the first men made countless attempts to create fire, mankind has spent millennia experimenting with ways to attain prosperity. Similar to fire’s observable necessities, prosperity may only be created when complying with the laws of economics. Like dropping an ice cube into a cup, we understand that without creating more energy, we may only transfer the current overall level between objects. Yet, we oftentimes see politicians claim the ability to simultaneously transfer levels of prosperity between people while increasing its…