Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright: © 2025 Burns et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original source is cited.
European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
Vol 6 |Issue 2 |March 2025
ISSN 2736-4534
REVIEW
Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics
Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion
Scott Burns 1,*, Matthew Alford 2, and David C. Wyld 3
ABSTRACT
One of the greatest challenges that economic educators face is finding
creative ways to bring the economic way of thinking to life. This paper
introduces a creative way to engage students in the most important ideas
in economics using a captivating thought experiment from science fiction:
what can economics teach us about how our policymakers should respond
to an alien invasion? Although this thought experiment was initially used
as a debate topic for an economics club event, it has also been successfully
utilized in principles-level classes. It even has applications to a variety
of higher-level classes in international trade, game theory, and monetary
economics.
Keywords: Business education, economics, international trade,
microeconomics.
Submitted: May 06, 2024
Published: March 03, 2025
10.24018/ejedu.2025.6.2.844
1Assistant Professor of Economics,
Department of Business Administration,
Southeastern Louisiana University, USA.
2Instructor of Economics, Department of
Business Administration, Southeastern
Louisiana University, USA.
3Charles Wesley Merritt Professor of
Management, Department of Business
Administration, Southeastern Louisiana
University, USA.
*Corresponding Author:
e-mail: scott.burns@selu.edu
1. Introduction
Economics has long been derided by its critics as the
“dismal science” (Carlyle, 1849).1Unfortunately, far too
many students would agree with this rather bleak assess-
ment (Benedict & Hoag, 2002;Phipps & Clark, 1993;
Soper & Walstad, 1983). There is a reason why the noto-
riously dull actor Benjamin Stein was cast to play the
role of a soporific “Economics Teacher” in Ferris Bueller’s
Day Off . Does anyone want to guess what Stein’s real-life
job was prior to this breakthrough acting role? “Anyone?
Anyone? Bueller ...?” That’s right: An economist.
Given this not-so-flattering reputation, one of the great-
est challenges that educators face is finding creative ways to
engage students in the economic way of thinking. Thank-
fully, many dedicated educators have found innovative
1Interestingly enough, this pejorative label wasn’t originally intended to imply eco-
nomics was “dull” or “boring,” as it is commonly interpreted today. Nor was it a
reference to Thomas Malthus’s(1798) famously bleak essay “An Essay on the Principle of
Population,”which argued that the earth’sfinite resources combined with an ever-growing
population would consign the vast majority of the world’s population to poverty and
immiseration. The phrase was actually coined by pro-slavery Scottish historian Thomas
Carylyle in 1849 as a criticism of prominent Scottish Enlightenment economists like
Adam Smith, David Ricardo, David Hume, and J.S. Mill who argued both on moral and
economic grounds for the abolition of slavery. Their arguments for individual freedom
and laissez-faire reforms to the economy clashed with Carlyle’s pro-slavery position. He
wrote: “Economics is not a gay science. It is a dreary, desolate and indeed quite abject and
distressing one; what we might call...the dismal science” (Carlyle, 1849, p. 672).
ways to inject some life into the dismal science using real-
world examples and interactive games (Burns & Wyld,
2023;Geerling, 2012;Gold & Gold, 2010;Settlage &
Wollscheid, 2019). This paper contributes to these efforts
by introducing another “outside the box” approach to
teaching students how to think like an economist. It does
so, using not a game or real-world example, but a science-
fictional thought experiment that will capture students’
attention and spark their imagination: a hypothetical alien
invasion.
The specific question students are asked to ponder is:
what can economics teach us about how our leaders should
respond to an alien invasion? Students can choose a side
in the debate–the hawkish approach (“we should attack
immediately!”) or the dovish approach (“we should try to
make peace”). Most importantly, they are asked to use
economic ideas to defend their position.
Although this thought experiment was originally
designed for an economics club debate between two
economics professors, it also serves as a great teaching tool
for principles-level undergraduate classes. It can even be
utilized in a variety of upper-level undergraduate classes
like international economics, international trade, game
theory, and monetary economics.
This paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 explains how
this topic was utilized for an economics club debate and
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 1
Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion Burns et al.
how it could be used as an assignment in a principles-level
class. Section 3 explores economic ideas that could be used
to defend the hawkish position. Section 4 does the same for
the dovish side. Because the authors (and most economists,
we’d surmise) believe that economics makes a far stronger
case for the dovish side, we dedicate more attention to that
position. However, for the sake of argument (and since
the primary goal is to teach students how economics can
help them think through both sides of complex issues), we
also explore how economics could be used to justify the
hawkish side. Section 5 concludes with some additional
thoughts on how this thought experiment could be utilized
in upper-level economics classes.
2. Setting the Stage for the Debate
2.1. Using the Debate for an Economics Club Event
This thought experiment was originally designed for an
undergraduate economics club debate in March 2023. The
debate took place at Southeastern Louisiana University in
Hammond, Louisiana, a regional university with students
from a wide array of socioeconomic backgrounds.
At the start of the event, the following proposition was
introduced:
Suppose that you are an economist on the President’s
Council of Economic Advisors. One day, an alien
spaceship arrives outside Earth’s atmosphere. Based
on your knowledge of economics, should you advise
the President to immediately attack the alien space-
ship or try to establish peaceful relations with the
aliens?
This debate topic was not chosen at random. In
early 2023, the topic of “UAPs” (Unidentified Aerial
Phenomenon) captured headlines after formerly classi-
fied documents were released detailing several reported
encounters (Lillis & Fisher, 2023). According to Google
Trends data, the UAP craze peaked in July of 2023 after
three military veterans testified on their alleged encounters
with UAPs during a publicly televised House Oversight
and Accountability subcommittee hearing at the nation’s
capitol (Romo & Chappell, 2023). The ubiquity of the
UAP discussion in pop culture and on various social media
platforms made it an ideal topic for an event intended to
attract students across the entire campus (not just business
students).
The debate featured two economics professors at the
University who, for the sake of argument (and entertain-
ment), took opposing sides in the debate. For dramatic
purposes, the debate was framed as an “ECON DUEL”
(an “Economics Trial by Combat” where “two men enter
but only one man leaves.”) A promotional f lier is included
in the Appendix. Alas, much to the dismay of many stu-
dents, no economists were harmed in the making of this
debate, and there was no significant bloodshed or mortal
combat-style confrontation between the two tributes.
The event was an Oxford-style debate. This means that
before the debate, attendees were asked to vote on which
side they were on (the “hawk” or “dove” side). They were
then asked to vote again at the end after hearing both
presenters. The votes were collected in Mentimeter, which
allows voters to use their cell phones to scan a QR code and
answer poll questions directly; the interactive, real-time
results were displayed on the screen to all. Per Oxford-style
rules, the “winner” of the debate was determined not by
who had a majority of the vote on their side of the debate
but rather by which presenter convinced the most people
to switch to their side.2
After the initial poll was taken, the two debaters flipped
a coin to decide who would present first. Each presenter
then had 10–12 minutes to make their case. Since the
goal of the debate was to demonstrate how economics
can help inform the way we think about a wide range of
topics (including something as “out of this world” as an
alien encounter), the presenters tried to deploy as many
economic ideas as possible to defend their position. After
these opening statements, both presenters participated in
a 15–20 minute Q and A period. The final vote was taken
after this lively and engaging Q and A period. Students
were asked to vote based on how persuasive they found
the respective arguments and, in particular, how effectively
the presenters marshaled economic ideas to support their
positions.3One of the biggest takeaways from the debate
was how successful it was at generating student engage-
ment. Students were challenged to think about this topic
in an entirely new way–through the lens of economics.
This prompted them to ask many creative questions and
hypotheticals in the Q and A portion of the debate.4
2.2. Using the Topic for a Principles-Level Economics
Class
Although originally designed for a one-off event, this
topic has also served as a useful and engaging thought
experiment for principles-level economics classes. The fol-
lowing assignment prompt was used in the Principles of
Macroeconomics class in the Fall of 2023:
“At a congressional hearing in July 2023,three former
US intelligence officers testified that the US govern-
ment had for decades been concealing information
about UFOs (now called UAPs) and potential alien
lifeforms visiting Earth.
Imagine that one day, a giant alien spaceship arrives
right outside Earth’s atmosphere. Suppose that you
are the chief economist on the President’s Council of
Economic Advisors. You are asked to provide a short
presentation to the President on what economics tells
us about the likelihood that these aliens will be peaceful
or hostile.
2A quick note on scoring for this debate. This Oxford-style format for scoring is
preferable to taking a simple majority vote because the initial results might be heavily
skewed to one side. In this original debate, for instance, 39 of 50 students (78%) initially
voted on the “dove”side of the debate. Basing the winner off a simple majority vote, then,
would have biased the results to the debater on the dovish side since they started with such
a sizable lead. The goal is not to win a majority of voters to your side but rather to move
more voters to your side than your opponents. This levels the playing field and gives the
debater on the minority side a fighting chance.
3In this original debate, there was a net move of one vote towards the dovish side of
the debate (from 39 to 40 votes out of 50). However, results can and will vary. Subsequent
versions of this debate featured much more movement.
4Although this section has outlined one potential format for this debate,there are many
different ways educators can alter this topic and format to elicit student engagement.
Educators are encouraged to tailor the debate to their needs.
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 2
Burns et al. Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion
The specific question your article should answer is this:
Should the President immediately order the military
to attack the alien ship (the “hawkish” approach), or
should we try to establish peaceful relations with the
aliens? (the “dovish” approach). Since you are writing
this from the perspective of an economist, you must use
economic ideas to support your position. Do your best
to incorporate economic ideas we discuss in class, as
well as any arguments from the textbook or your own
research that might apply.”
It is strongly recommended that the educator emphasize
that student grades will not be determined by whether
they are “right” or “wrong.” Since students are expected
to frame their arguments from the perspective of an
economist, their grade should instead be determined by
how effectively and persuasively they marshal economic
ideas to defend their position. The goal is ultimately to
teach students how to think through problems using eco-
nomics, not what to think.
A nice feature of this assignment is that it can be tailored
in many different ways. It was originally utilized as a
bonus assignment. Students were invited to submit a six-
to eight-slide presentation framed as a presentation to the
President’s cabinet. The instructor then selected the best
submissions on either side. The two selected students were
asked to present in front of their entire class in an Oxford-
style debate the next week. The two presenters were given
five minutes to make their case to the class. The winner of
the in-class debate received an additional bonus.
This assignment could just as easily be scaled up to a
required assignment for an entire class. For instance, it
would make a great group presentation topic (particularly
in upper-level classes with fewer students). It could also
be easily tailored into a writing assignment. One author
crafted a short essay version of this assignment (roughly
500–750 words) where students were asked to provide
at least three economic ideas and arguments to defend
their position. As the concluding section of this paper
notes, it could even be utilized in a variety of upper-level
classes, including international economics, game theory
and monetary economics.
3. The Hawkish Position: “We Will Not Go Quietly
into the Night!”
“They are heeeere!” What do we do now? If Hollywood
is any indication, the arrival of aliens is bound to go badly
for us humans. Alien, Independence Day, Mars Attacks,
Signs, War of the Worlds, the entire Marvel Cinematic
Universe ... the list goes on.
Thankfully, we do not have to rely on something as
boring and vapid as Hollywood action films to determine
our best course of action. We can instead turn to something
far more riveting and informative: economics! So let us see
what economics can teach us about why making peace with
the aliens may, to quote the band REM, bring about “the
end of the world as we know it.”
3.1. Scarcity
The hawkish case is rooted in one of the most fundamen-
tal truths in economics: scarcity. Scarcity is one of the first
concepts students encounter in an introductory economics
class. The lesson goes something like this. Human wants
are infinite. (To quote the band Queen: “I want it all,
and I want it now!”) Sadly, the means that we have at
our disposal to achieve those wants are finite, i.e., scarce.
(As the Rolling Stones sang: “You ca not always get what
you want ...”) The “fundamental economic problem” any
society must overcome is how to efficiently allocate our
limited means to achieve as many of our limitless wants
and desires as possible.
Recognizing that scarcity is inescapable brings us to a
rather humbling (some may even say “dismal”) realization.
Even if we want to be optimistic and assume that our
extraterrestrial interlopers “come in peace” and seek to
barter with us, would we be able to satisfy their demands
for Earth’s scarce natural resources while maintaining our
advanced civilization? Let us face it: we already struggle
to meet the needs of our current population. Despite all
the progress we have made over the past few centuries, 700
million people still live in extreme poverty (World Bank,
n.d.). Moreover, the earth’s finite resources are in peril
of being exhausted. None of this even takes into account
concerns about climate change and the externalities asso-
ciated with exhausting the earth’s scarce supply of natural
resources. Given these dire stakes, how could we possibly
afford to meet the demands of an alien civilization while
also satisfying our own needs?
These concerns about the long-term viability of human
life and flourishing on earth are by no means new.
For centuries, economists and environmental scientists
have warned about the perils of depleting Earth’s finite
resources (even absent any imminent threat of an alien
invasion). In the late 18th century, English economist
Malthus (1798) famously argued in his “An Essay on
the Principle of Population” that the earth’s finite human
resources combined with the exponential increase in
human population would inexorably consign the vast
majority of earth’s population to a life of poverty and
immiseration. Nearly two centuries later, biologist Paul
Ehrlich revived Malthus’s arguments in his best-selling
book The Population Bomb (1978). He famously pre-
dicted that because of the earth’s rising population and
the increasing scarcity of its resources, advanced human
civilization would likely cease to exist by the end of the
21st century. Thankfully, Malthus and Ehrlich’s most dire
predictions have not come to fruition (yet). That said, these
fears remain enormously influential amongst policymak-
ers and environmental activists who worry the earth is
on a path to civilizational disaster. Many scientists and
environmental activists today point to rising commodity
prices, higher CO2levels and increasing inequality and
social unrest as evidence that human civilization cannot be
sustained on its current trajectory.
In short, scarcity is not just some abstract idea in your
economic textbooks. It is an inescapable fact of life. If we
can hardly sustain our advanced civilization without any
existential threat from an alien invasion, why would we ever
risk inviting these celestial strangers into our home and
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 3
Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion Burns et al.
encourage them to help themselves to our finite natural
resources?
3.2. Uncertainty and Risk Aversion
This brings us to the second economic argument for why
we should not welcome these alien interlopers with open
arms: uncertainty. Economist Thomas Sowell suggested we
should always ask three questions when confronting a big
policy question where the potential outcomes are highly
uncertain (and I think ‘Should we attack aliens?’ would
qualify as a “big” question!):
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
First, ‘Compared to what?’ In evaluating a possible solu-
tion, it is important to keep in mind that there are many
possible courses of action that we can take (including ‘do
nothing’). Economists’ go-to analytical tool is “marginal
analysis.” Whenever we make a decision, we weigh the
marginal costs and marginal benefits of each possible
course of action.
Let us consider how marginal analysis might inform
how we should respond to an alien invasion. Some might
expect an alien invasion to bring about a utopian society
here on Earth. With all of their obvious technological
advantages and interstellar travel capabilities, perhaps the
aliens improve human lives in every possible way (marginal
benefit =positive infinity). It is also possible that it is the
end of humanity as we know it (marginal cost =negative
infinity).
One of the big lessons in the field of behavioral eco-
nomics is that humans are “risk averse.”This means that we
have a very strong preference for avoiding worst-case sce-
narios, even if they are highly unlikely. To take an example,
terrorist attacks are incredibly rare. Yet most Americans
support strict counterterrorism measures, even though
they are far more likely to perish in a neighborhood traffic
accident or choke on a chicken bone. To economists, this is
not a sign that humans are “irrational.” Rather, it is a sign
we have a strong preference for avoiding worst-case scenar-
ios (understandably so, given the immense psychological
toll and potentially cataclysmic outcome of a terrorist
attack!). This risk aversion might mean we humans are a
tad neurotic. But it also helps explain why the human race
has survived (and thrived!) for millennia.
How does this all relate to an alien invasion? Even if
the chances that an alien invasion goes sour and turns into
an extinction-level event for humans are exceedingly small
(say, 1%), there is a strong case that we should not risk
it. If you think about it, we are actually doing pretty well
here on Earth. Extreme poverty is down by more than
90% over the past two centuries (Roser, 2023). Humans
are living far longer, more materially prosperous lives than
at any other point in history. Sure, we have our problems.
But we have made great progress on many issues! If the
past few centuries are any indication, humans are likely
to continue to see drastic improvements in our daily lives
without any intergalactic assistance. Human innovation
in areas like artificial intelligence and advanced robotics
alone is likely to raise our collective standard of living
without any reliance on extraterrestrial benevolence. With
so many positives on the horizon, why would we risk it all
on a roll of the intergalactic dice? There is no guarantee
aliens can offer us a surefire upgrade over what we have.
As NBA legend Charles Barkley eloquently said, “If it ai
not broke, do not break it.” So do not overthink it! Risk
aversion has served humans well so far. As such, it is likely
better to blast the aliens out of the sky...you know, just
to be safe.
Now, let us look at Sowell’s second question: ‘At what
cost?’ What’s the first lesson in the first chapter of the
#1 economics textbook? “There is no such thing as a free
lunch!” (shoutout to Dr. Mankiw, 1998). Can we really
expect the aliens to show up and just give away their
knowledge and technology? Fat chance. Unless they turn
out to be a bunch of intergalactic altruists, we will have to
come up with bargaining chips. Tradeoffs will be necessary.
This means we will have to weigh the opportunity costs.
As Mankiw’s (1998) Principles of Economics text states, the
cost of something is what you must give up getting it. Are
we willing to give up whatever the aliens demand of us? If
not, maybe it is best to blindside them while we still have
the chance.
Even if we avoid the worst-case scenario and the aliens
do not immediately annihilate us, economics gives us
plenty of reasons to believe that their arrival will still usher
in an array of unforeseen and unintended consequences.
For instance, it may very well have a negative impact on
low-status males. As economists who study crime have
long argued, a great number of societal ills (terrorism,
criminality, chronic unemployment, substance abuse, etc.)
can be traced back to fragile, low-socioeconomic-status
males (Becker, 1968;Ihlanfeldt, 2006;Levitt, 2017). To
make matters worse, what if the aliens take their jobs? The
aliens and all of their new tech will undoubtedly displace
many low-skilled workers, much like some economists fear
low-skilled immigrants do today (Borjas, 2016). This will
only exacerbate the problems we see from low-status males,
who derive much of their identity and sense of self-worth
from their occupations.
An alien invasion is also likely to generate more income
inequality. Economists and politicians alike recognize the
challenges of a widening gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have
nots’ in society. An alien invasion is very likely to increase
this gap. Each new wave of innovation has simultaneously
raised society’s overall well-being and widened the gap
between the richest and poorest inhabitants of this planet.
This will surely exacerbate our current problems.
Finally, Sowell’s third question: ‘What hard evidence do
you have?’ In other words, show how your idea has worked
on a small scale before we execute it on a large scale.
Clearly, there is no precedent for an alien invasion. How-
ever, we can take lessons from our own species’ economic
history. Colonization did not work out so well for the
colonized. History is rife with examples of things going
terribly wrong by allowing foreigners in (Trojan horse,
anyone?). None of this even mentions the risk that inviting
an alien species into our planet may introduce dangerous
new diseases to our delicate ecosystem. Just ask the Incas,
Aztecs, and other native civilizations how well exposing
their immune systems to foreign toxins worked out for
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 4
Burns et al. Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion
them. We can also take lessons from biology and the behav-
ior of other species (Diamond, 1998). No organism leaves
its current ecosystem for another unless it has exhausted
the resources of the former. The aliens may only come here
because they have no alternative but to leave their previous
homes. Who is to say they wo not do the same thing on
Earth? This raises another issue: aliens have the option to
leave, but we do not. We have incentives to economize our
resources to protect our home because we have to stay here.
Aliens do not. For all these reasons (and many more!), it is
best not to let aliens crash on our celestial couch. So, let us
slam the door shut instead.
Even if we want to be optimistic and assume that the
aliens are open to peacefully trading with us, there is also
the pesky problem of how we’d even facilitate trade in the
first place. What form of money could we use? Chances are
the aliens wo not be satisfied to accept green pieces of paper
with dead presidents or any other earthly form of money
in exchange for their goods. Would we have to rely on
barter transactions? How could we even determine prices
and exchange rates for the goods that would be offered to
us in trade? Presumably, visitors from another galaxy will
offer commodities and various goods and services we have
never encountered before. How could we meaningfully
determine how to price these entirely novel goods and
services?
Over time, we may arrive at valid answers to these ques-
tions. But these answers will likely take months–or even
years!–to determine.5The longer the aliens linger, and the
longer we are unsure about their motives and aspirations,
the more uncertainty will spread throughout the global
economy. Any economist worth their salt will tell you that
uncertainty is an economic killer. When uncertainty spikes,
consumers stop spending, producers curb investment, and
the global financial system comes to a screeching halt
(Baker & Bloom, 2013). Given this reality, the simplest and
best course of action would be to nip this problem in the
bud before that uncertainty snowballs into a full-blown
global crisis. In the long run, could we possibly find ways to
coexist peacefully with the aliens? Perhaps. But I would not
bet our species on it. As economist John Maynard Keynes
famously said, “In the long run, we are all dead.”
In short, an alien invasion is no time to cower in fear
or tuck tail and surrender. It is a time for us to unite as
a human race and fight back. To quote America’s greatest
(fictional) president, Thomas J. Whitmore (from the movie
Independence Day): “We will not go quietly into the night!
We will not vanish without a fight! We are going to live on!
We are going to survive!”
4. Dr. Strange-Dove, or: “How I Learned to Stop
Worrying and Love the Aliens”
The phrase “they are here” is enough to strike fear
into even the most xenophilic person (I’m looking at you,
Richard Dreyfus). Fear of the unknown is a deeply rooted
human instinct. And there is no greater unknown than
5This is especially true considering that we will have to first develop a language to
communicate with our alien visitors, which itself would be enormously time-consuming
(as brilliantly depicted in the 2016 film Arrival).
a direct encounter with aliens. After decades of watch-
ing apocalyptic Hollywood depictions, who could possibly
blame us for wanting to go Sigourney Weaver from Alien
on our intergalactic visitors? Thankfully, the dovish case is
not rooted in fear or passivity. At its heart, it is a case for
optimism about the aliens’ likely motives, one that is deeply
rooted in economic ideas and the economic history of our
own planet. In short, economic theory and lessons from
our own planet’s economic history give us strong reasons
to believe that (a) trading with the aliens is a much better
strategy for long-term peace and prosperity than direct
conflict and (b) if aliens do arrive at earth’s doorstep, it is
far more likely they’ll “come in peace.”
4.1. Aliens, Markets, and Gains from Intergalactic Trade
At its core, the dovish case for peace rests on one of
the simplest yet most profound ideas in economics: trade
is good! One of the first lessons students learn in an
introductory economics class is that trade is not “zero-
sum.” When a voluntary trade occurs, one side is not made
richer at the other’s expense. Both sides are made better off!
In economics parlance, trade is positive-sum.
Economists call the positive-sum nature of trade
the “fundamental theorem of exchange.” For most of
mankind’s existence, this insight has been overlooked. As
evolutionary biologists have noted, the human mind is
hard-wiredtothinkofwealthinzero-sumterms(Johnson
et al., 2022). In primitive hunter-gatherer societies, every
deer I kill leaves one less for you. Even in competitive
sports today, one team’s success (victory) comes at the
other’s expense (loss). The beauty of trade, however, is
it creates “win-win” outcomes where both sides are made
better off.
In microeconomics, students learn that when individuals
trade, they are both made richer. In macroeconomics, they
learn the same thing, which is true when nations trade. If
trade within and between nations is an unalloyed good,
there is no reason to think the same is not true of intergalac-
tic trade. The laws of economics do not magically cease
functioning at the edge of the earth’s atmosphere.
Adam Smith, widely regarded as the “father of eco-
nomics,” famously elucidated how trade makes both
individuals and society as a whole wealthier in his land-
mark treatise Wealth of Nations (1776). This flourishing
marketplace set the stage for what Smith called the “divi-
sion of labor” in society. Thanks to trade, individuals can
specialize in producing whatever goods they are best suited
to make and then trade with others in order to get the
goods they wish to consume. This system of specialization
and trade, Smith argued, allows people to attain a much
higher standard of living than they could otherwise attain
under autarky (i.e., a world sans specialization and trade).
Being a “jack of all trades” is great if you’re stranded on
a desert island, ala Robinson Crusoe. However, as Smith’s
theory makes clear if you want to get rich in a modern
market society, you’re best served by specializing in being
a “master of one” craft trading with your fellow man.
Another key insight from Smith is that the benefits
of specialization grow the more that trading networks
expand. As he succinctly put it: “the division of labour is
limited by the extent of the market” (Smith, 1776, Book
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 5
Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion Burns et al.
I, ch. III). International trade gives us access to more
trading partners. The more trading partners we have, the
easier it becomes to specialize and trade. For Smith, the
proximate cause of the wealth of nations was the deepening
of society’s division of labor. The “invisible hand” of the
market thus creates a virtuous cycle. The more we trade, the
more we are able to specialize, and the more we specialize,
the more stuff we are able to produce and trade.
Whatcanan18
th-century philosopher teach us about
a21
st-century alien encounter? If Smith were alive today,
it is almost certain he would agree that the smart,
economically-informed way to greet our intergalactic visi-
tors is with open arms and an olive branch, not pitchforks
and hellfire missiles. If expanding international trade was
Smith’s best explanation for the rapidly rising wealth of
nations he witnessed nearly 250 years ago, just imagine
how much we could increase our wealth if we expanded
those frontiers even further by embracing intergalactic
trade!
Skeptics may be tempted to rebut: what about the job
losses that opening up intergalactic trade might create here
on Earth? Indeed, this is a perfectly reasonable concern.
Nobody wants to see millions of humans lose their jobs due
to intergalactic competition from actual aliens, especially
given all the grave social ills that tend to accompany large-
scale unemployment.
Thankfully, economics gives us good reasons to believe
that intergalactic trade wo not create massive unemploy-
ment. To understand why, we need not look any further
than the history of international trade on our own planet.
For centuries, critics of trade have argued that restricting
foreign trade would destroy domestic jobs and create a
permanent class of the unemployed. Indeed, Smith wrote
Wealth of Nations largely to refute the protectionist argu-
ments advanced by the “mercantilists” of his day. His
arguments proved prescient. Opening up trade did not
result in an ever-growing class of the unemployed. In
fact, the precise opposite occurred. Nations that embraced
freer trade enjoyed lower long-term unemployment rates,
higher growth rates, greater social mobility, and far larger
reductions in poverty rates (Dutt et al., 2009).
But what could we possibly trade the aliens that they’d
value? After all, they’ve mastered intergalactic travel! Their
technology is clearly far more advanced. They are likely
better than us at making everything. So what could they
possibly gain from trading with us mere earthlings?
Thankfully, classical economics also gives us a reassur-
ing answer to this concern. Aliens may have an absolute
advantage over us, meaning they are likely better (i.e., more
productive) at making just about everything. However, as
Ricardo (1817) argued, it is not an absolute advantage that
determines who should produce what. It is a comparative
advantage–being the lowest opportunity cost producer of
a good or service. A key implication of Ricardo’s theory is
that every person or nation will have a comparative advan-
tage in something, no matter how poor or technologically
underdeveloped they are! This is why poor nations are
typically the greatest beneficiaries of trade, even if rich
nations hold an absolute advantage in making everything.
How does this apply to intergalactic trade? Even if aliens
have an absolute advantage in producing most (if not
all) goods, we will always have a comparative advantage
in producing a wide variety of goods and services. If
nothing else, like Italian winemakers or Colombian coffee
farmers today, chances are we would likely have a built-
in geographical and cultural advantage in producing a
variety of goods that aliens may have never encountered
but would very much like to buy. What reasonable alien
would not want to buy Louisiana gumbo, Cuban cigars,
or Colombian coffee? Or Beyonce or Taylor Swift tickets?
The possibilities for trade are endless.
Focusing solely on the potential disruptions to our econ-
omy that could be caused by intergalactic trade also causes
us to ignore all of the incredible benefits that we’d get from
trading with a technologically advanced species! One of the
most common mistakes that critics of trade make today
is focusing solely on the (real or perceived) costs of trade
while neglecting (or severely underestimating) its benefits.
Economist Caplan (2011) calls this the “anti-foreign bias.”
Sure, trading with the aliens means that we will give some
things up. But just think of all the amazing things we can
potentially get from them in exchange! What if the aliens
have developed, say, a cure for cancer? Clean energy? Anti-
aging technology? It is a pretty bad negotiating tactic to
launch an attack on them without hearing what they can
offer us in return.
Whether we are talking about international or inter-
galactic trade, the lesson remains the same: both sides can
be made richer through specialization and trade. For Smith
and Ricardo, the specialization and division of labor that
was made possible by expanding the frontiers of trade
lies at the heart of the rapid rise in material well-being
that so many nations experienced in their lifetime. Many
economists today argue that it also explains much of the
rapid economic growth that developing nations experi-
enced in the first and second “golden age of globalization”
beforeWorldWarIandafterWorldWarII(Hubbard
& O’Brien, 2008, ch. 7). Perhaps most reassuring for us
earthlings, the biggest beneficiaries of globalization have
been people in poor nations who, thanks to trade, could
access labor-enhancing technologies and a wide array of
cheap foreign products (Powell, 2014). Nobel laureate
economist Hayek (1991) described the vast network of
specialization and trade that characterized global markets
as the “extended order of the market.” There is no reason
in theory why this extended order cannot stretch across the
galaxy!
An added benefit of immediately establishing peaceful
trading ties with the aliens is that it would also significantly
reduce the risk of future conflict with our intergalactic
interlopers. As economists have long noted, nations that
trade with one another rarely go to war. The cost of violent
conflict rises (thus, the likelihood of war falls), and the
more integrated and interdependent economies become
through trade (Weede, 2005). The logic behind this “cap-
italist peace hypothesis” also applies to interstellar trade.
The best way to reduce our risk of direct conf lict with the
aliens is through trade. As Hayek (1976) aptly noted, the
Greek word for trade, “catallactics,” translates to “to turn
from an enemy to a friend.” What better way to open up
negotiations with our alien visitors than by pointing out
that we can enrich each other by trading rather than going
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 6
Burns et al. Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion
to war? To adapt a phrase from McCloskey and Carden
(2020), “Leave us alone, and we will make you rich.” That
is to say, do not attack us, and we will make each other rich.
This would seem to be a much better bargaining position
than threatening them by essentially yelling, “Get off our
lawn.”
The ability of trade to make friends out of potential
enemies is particularly relevant in light of the rather hum-
bling premise of this thought experiment. Based on the
hypothetical laid out here, the aliens found us and arrived
at our planet first. This would imply that they have far
more advanced technology than ours. It would also seem
to indicate their weaponry is likely far more advanced.
None of this bodes well for our chances of defeating them
in a direct military confrontation. “Homefield advantage”
does not do you much good when you’re fighting against
space lasers. So, let us deal with reality. Given the aliens’
clear technological advantage, we stand no shot at defeat-
ing them in armed conflict. Making peace is not just an
economically wise decision. It is the only viable option. Let
us face it: if the aliens did not “come in peace,” chances
are they would’ve swiftly sentenced us to the same fate as
the poor people of Alderaan. And if they do “come in
peace,”the last thing we’d want to do is start a fight with an
alien species that has us intellectually and technologically
outgunned. Practically speaking, making peace is not just
an economically prudent choice. It is the only viable choice
for the survival of the human race.
4.2. Reasons for Optimism or “How I Learned to Stop
Worrying and Love the Aliens”
There is an obvious rebuttal to this admittedly rosy
(perhaps even Panglossian) viewpoint. What if the aliens
are not interested in trade? What if they are only interested
in violent conquest and appropriation? Thankfully, eco-
nomics gives us very strong reasons to believe that will not
be the case. To see why, we do not need to travel back in
time “to a galaxy far, far away.” In fact, we need not look
further than the economic history of our own planet over
just the past few centuries.
How did primitive societies amass wealth and power?
They did so largely through violent conquest and appropri-
ation. Travel back four millennia to the ancient Egyptian
and Akkadian empires. How were these early empires
built? Through violent conquest and appropriating the
wealth of nearby tribes. Fast forward a millennium to the
rise of the Persian and Macedonian empires. How did they
attain their power? You guessed it: violent conquest and
appropriation.
As vast and powerful as these empires were in their
heyday, there are two things worth noting about them.
First, none of them stood the test of time. What’s the status
of the mighty Egyptian, Persian and Macedonian empires
today? They’ve all been relegated to the dustbin of history.
Second, none came close to achieving anywhere near the
wealth and prosperity that even the poorest nations enjoy
today.6Even at their height, the average person lived in
6It is worth noting here that the Roman Empire is somewhat an exception to this rule
that these ancient empires didn’t generate any appreciable improvements in the average
person’s wealth and standard of living. As noted by numerous economic historians (see,
for instance, Silver, 2007) and even as vaunted of sources as Monty Python’s The Life of
abject poverty by modern standards. Even their ruling
elites were poor by today’s standards. As economist Nye
(2018) argues, the average person in the first world today
enjoys a material standard of living “that would have made
the greatest king of two hundred years ago turn green with
envy.”
Economics can help explain why these ancient empires
remained so poor. Empires built on violent appropriation
are incapable of sustained or widespread economic growth.
Why? To use the terminology introduced earlier, relying
on violent appropriation is a “zero-sum” game. When one
tribe–the ancient Akkadians, for example, led by King
Sargon of Akkad–conquers another tribe and confiscates
its land, labor and material wealth, they are not doing
anything to increase the total stock of wealth in society. At
best, they are shifting it from the hands of one group to
another. On the net, no new wealth is created. One group’s
gains came at another’s expense.
If anything, calling this “zero-sum” paints too rosy a
picture. Violent appropriation is, in reality, a “negative
sum.” In order for King Sargon to conquer a nearby
tribe, many people will perish. Large amounts of material
wealth will also be destroyed as villages are razed. Even
the time and resources dedicated to the war represent a
net (opportunity) cost to society. Absent war, the iron and
steel that went into making swords and shields could’ve
instead gone into making consumer goods that would raise
society’s standard of living. When resources are dedicated
to war and destruction, one side may “win”, but society as
a whole is inevitably made poorer.
Fig. 1 depicts world GDP dating back two thousand
years. If we ignore the last few centuries, what stands out?
For the vast majority of human history, it is essentially flat.
We’d see the same story if we extended this graph back
200 millennia to the dawn of mankind. Even if we cherry-
picked GDP per capita for the great empires at the height
of their reign, the trivial uptick would be imperceivable.
Empires rose and fell, but the economic story remained the
same. Even the richest rulers in the richest empires would
be desperately poor by modern standards.
Now, focus on the tail end of the graph. Global GDP
skyrocketed starting in the 17th and 18th century after the
agricultural and industrial revolution that took place in
Western Europe. We can see the effects of this more clearly
by zooming in and analyzing GDP per capita in various
regions of the world over the past few hundred years, as
depicted in Fig. 27.
Economist McCloskey (2010) refers to the dramatic
uptick in wealth after millennia of flatlining stagnation as
the “hockey stick of human prosperity.” For McCloskey,
this sudden surge in growth and material prosperity rep-
resents the “great fact” of economic history. How did
Brian, the RomanEmpire did, in fact, usher in a marked improvement in people’s standard
of living: improved sanitation, irrigation, medicine, education, infrastructure, etc. The
primary reason for these advances, however, was not violent appropriation or military
conquest. It was that the Romans essentially established free trade throughout the entire
Mediterranean region. It was trade, not conquest, that was most responsible for ushering
in the halcyon age of progress that gave Roman citizens an appreciably higher standard of
living than their contemporaries.
7An important observation from Fig. 2 is that even though most regions of the world
haveexperienced considerable growth overthe past few centuries, that growth has not been
uniform. Some regions (namely, the U.S. and other Western nations) enjoyed much faster
growth. Annual GDP per capita in the U.S. exceeds $55,000. That is 20 times higher than
two centuries earlier. It is also 20 times higher than the GDP per capita in Sub-Saharan
Africa today.
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 7
Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion Burns et al.
Fig. 1. World GDP over the past 2000 years (Source: Bolt & Van Zanden, 2020).
Fig. 2. World GDP per capita by region over the last two millennia. (Source: Our World in Data, n.d., 2023).
modern societies achieve this exponential growth? Some
may claim that they achieved it the same way as early
empires: through violent conquest or its more modern
manifestation, colonialism. But this begs the question: why
has overall wealth increased so rapidly over this period,
even in many colonized regions and for nations with no
history of colonialism?8
8Many classical economists argued that, if anything, slavery and colonialism stunted
economic growth. Like violent conquest, slavery and extractive forms of colonialism are
at best zero-sum, and in reality negative-sum, for the economy. All the labor forced into
slavery would have been far more productive if it were free to engage in specialization
and trade. These arguments, in addition to their now widely accepted moral arguments,
undergirded Adam Smith, David Hume, J.S. Mill and other early economists’ staunch
opposition to slavery and colonialism. It also explains why more modern colonial powers
like the Soviet Union and nations that employ slave labor like N. Korea failed to grow
while market economies like the United States and South Korea have prospered.
Economics teaches us that the main reason for this is
that these societies adopted market-based institutions that
protect private property rights and facilitate trade. “Insti-
tutions” are the formal and informal rules that govern
a society. “Formal” rules refer to the statutory laws that
govern a society (e.g., the US Constitution). “Informal”
rules refer to the cultural norms and customs that shape
how people interact (e.g., social mores, rules of etiquette,
religion, etc.). Taken together, these serve as the “rules of
the game” that govern a society and shape how its people
interact.
Adam Smith emphasized the importance of institutions
in Wealth of Nations. Smith, a renowned philosopher at the
University of Glasgow during the Industrial Revolution,
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 8
Burns et al. Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion
observed that some nations were experiencing much faster
increases in the average person’s standard of living than
others. The common factor uniting them, he argued, was
not colonialism, military prowess or divine providence. It
was the adoption of market-based institutions that pro-
tected private property and facilitated commercial activity
both within and between nations.
Why did this shift towards markets result in an explosion
of material well and prosperity in market economies across
the world and the rise of the middle class? To harken back
to an earlier point, unlike the case of ancient tribes and
empires that engaged in violent expropriation, the wealth
created through specialization and trade is not zero-sum.
It is a positive sum.
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman aptly sum-
marized Adam Smith’s key insight about the positive-sum
nature of wealth creation in a market economy:
ThekeyinsightofAdamSmith’sWealth of Nations
is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two
parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless
both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic
fallacies derive from ...the tendency to assume that
there is a fixed pie [of wealth] that one party can
gain only at the expense of another. (Friedman &
Friedman, 1980, p. 13)
Economists often decry this “fixed pie fallacy” as short-
sighted. But wait, there is more! Markets do not just enrich
the two parties involved in a trade. They also make soci-
ety richer. By protecting people’s property and allowing
them to keep the fruits of their labor, markets give people
an incentive to develop innovations that enrich not just
themselves but society writ large. Nobel laureate Baumol
(1990) argued that market economies prosper because they
harness the power of entrepreneurship and human inge-
nuity and direct it towards “productive” activities (making
new products, etc.) rather than “destructive” ones (crime,
rent-seeking, etc.). It is no accident the vast majority of
scientific breakthroughs and inventions come from market
economies. There is a reason why groundbreaking com-
panies like Ford Motor Company or more contemporary
ones like Microsoft, Apple and Amazon were founded in
market economies like the United States and not Soviet
Russia. Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Jeff Bezos
certainly amassed sizable fortunes. But their wealth did not
come at society’s expense. In order to enrich themselves,
they first had to enrich society. Nobel laureate economist
William Nordhaus (2004) estimates that entrepreneurs
only retain 2.2% of the value that their inventions create for
society as personal income. So, markets are not just “win-
win” for the parties directly involved in a trade. Markets
create positive externalities for society writ large.
Earlier, the hawkish side alluded to Malthus’s (1798) and
Ehrlich’s (1978) dire predictions about the future. In 1980,
economist Julian Simon challenged Ehrlich to the most
famous bet in economic history (Sabin, 2013). He allowed
Ehrlich to pick a basket of commodities. If its real price
rose over the following decade (thus providing evidence
that those resources had become more scarce), Ehrlich
would be declared the winner. If its price fell, Simon would
win. A decade later, every single commodity that Ehrlich
chose had fallen in price. Simon (1996) argued that Ehrlich
severely underestimated the impact of human ingenuity.
For Simon, the human mind is the economy’s “ultimate
resource.” The key to unleashing this ultimate resource is a
market economy that gives people incentives to innovate.
In summary, no society in human history experienced
sustained growth and development by relying on violent
expropriation. Sure, ancient empires amassed land and
power. But they did not grow rich, especially not by today’s
standards. Nor were they capable of producing the types
of technology and innovations that led to vast increases in
material well-being for everyone, not just the ruling elites.
As history powerfully illustrates, the best (and only real)
way to experience sustained growth is through peaceful
trade under market-based institutions.
Recognizing this fact should give us enormous optimism
about our alien visitors. If aliens developed the sort of
advanced technology that enabled them to master inter-
galactic travel, it is inconceivable they could have done so
under Ghengis Khan-style institutions of violent expropri-
ation. It is also safe to assume our alien visitors wo not be a
bunch of Red Dawn-style “space commies”with a centrally
planned economy and a deep-seated aversion to free trade.
Odds are they’ll be capitalists who appreciate the benefits
of peaceful cooperation and trade.
How can we be so sure they’ll be peaceful capitalists
and not space-travelling commies? One of the greatest eco-
nomic lessons of the 20th century is that centrally planned
economies are incapable of producing anywhere near the
level of wealth and technological innovation as market
economies (let alone that would allow them to master inter-
galactic travel). Economics teaches us two main reasons
why market economies thrived while centrally planned
ones failed. The first has to do with incentives (as noted
earlier). In market economies, people have an incentive to
engage in productive activities that benefit society. This
is true even if everyone is motivated primarily (or even
exclusively) by a self-interested desire to enrich themselves.
The only way to get rich in a market economy is by serving
your fellow man. For all we know, Steve Jobs might’ve only
started Apple to enrich himself. But in a market economy,
the only way he could accrue his vast fortune was by first
serving the needs of his fellow man.
In centrally planned (i.e., communist) economies, in
contrast, people have very little incentive to invent new
products or engage in productive activities. The means of
production are entirely state-controlled, and all production
decisions are made in a top-down fashion by the state.
Even if someone develops a scientific breakthrough or
new product, they cannot reap the fruits of their labor by
growing a company or amassing a personal fortune. This
explains why virtually all the technological and scientific
breakthroughs during the Cold War came from the West
and not communist nations (Kornai, 2013). It also explains
why so many of the great entrepreneurs of the 20th century
came from market economies (and, in many cases, fled
centrally planned ones).
The second reason why a centrally planned economy
is unlikely to master interstellar travel is that its planners
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 9
Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion Burns et al.
sufferfromaknowledge problem. During the socialist
calculation debate of the early 20th century, Mises (1920)
and Hayek (1937) argued that planned economies are
incapable of generating the type of knowledge that is nec-
essary to solve the fundamental economic problem of how
to efficiently allocate society’s scarce resources. Boettke
(2012) aptly summarizes their core argument: Without
private property (particularly over the economy’s means
of production), you cannot generate meaningful market
prices. Without these market price signals, capitalists and
entrepreneurs cannot calculate profits and losses to deter-
mine the best (i.e., most cost-effective) way to combine
inputs into outputs. The root problem, then, is epistemic.
As Hayek (1945) argued, the knowledge that is needed
to engage in rational economic calculation is not given
to anyone in its totality. It must be discovered through
the competitive market process. It would, therefore, be
impossible for a planned economy to develop the type of
sophisticated technology necessary to master interstellar
travel. Indeed, history bears this out. The Soviets might’ve
put a few monkeys and satellites into orbit. But they were
incapable of putting a man on the moon or achieving
anywhere near the advanced space travel as the United
States did.
What does this all mean for our prospects of establishing
peaceful relations with our alien visitors? It means that it
is highly likely that if they were able to master intergalactic
travel to find us, they would hail from a market-based
economy. This is great news for us earthlings because it
means that our alien visitors likely understand fully that
exchange is much less costly and more profitable than
expropriation. If this is likely the case, why would we want
to shoot them out of the sky? For all we know, aliens might
have access to technologies that would help us combat
climate change and defeat cancer. After all, it is a safe bet
that a species that perfected intergalactic travel has clean
energy technology and great medicine from which we could
benefit. But we will never find out if we do not welcome
them in peace.
5. Conclusion
Taught properly, learning economics can be one of
the most exciting and transformative experiences that a
student can enjoy in college. Keeping students engaged,
however, requires educators to continually devise fun and
innovative ways to bring the economic way of thinking to
life. One of the most effective ways to do this is to apply this
economic way of thinking to non-traditional topics (like
an alien invasion) to show students how economic ideas
can be used to help them understand issues they previously
never would’ve even associated with economics.
This paper has introduced one creative way that educa-
tors can teach students to apply foundational economic
concepts. Although it focused on how this topic could be
used to teach principles-level undergraduate students or
advanced high school students, it could easily be applied
to higher-level college courses. Its lessons about the fun-
damental theorem of exchange and gains from trade, for
instance, could easily be incorporated into any upper-level
course on international economics or international trade.
Its use of strategic thinking (“attack” vs. “make peace”)
would also make a great thought experiment for a course
on game theory. Another creative and thought-provoking
application of this thought experiment would be to use it
in a money and banking class to get students to ponder
how intergalactic trade would likely unfold: would the two
sides rely on barter transactions, or would they want to
find some medium of exchange to serve as “money”to help
facilitate trade and overcome the “double coincidence of
wants” problem? What money (if any) would both sides
likely agree upon to facilitate trade: fiat money, gold, or
some other commodity or digital form of money? How
would prices and exchange rates be set between various
traded items, particularly if they involve entirely novel?
Although the potential applications of this thought
experiment are manifold, the essential lesson remains the
same: economics can be fun! Understanding economics
can help students understand a wide variety of intricate
real-world issues (and even some science-fictional ones!).
In any case, engaging students and challenging them to use
their imagination is a key first step to getting them excited
about learning a new field and motivating them to become
lifelong learners.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict
of interest.
References
Baker, S. R., & Bloom, N. (2013). Does Uncertainty Reduce Growth?
Using Disasters as Natural Experiments (No. w19475). National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Baumol, W. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and
destructive. Journal of Political Economy,98(5), 893–921. https://
doi.org/10.1086/261712.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach.
Journal of Political Economy,76(2), 169–217. https://doi.
org/10.1086/259394.
Benedict, M. E., & Hoag, J. (2002). Who’s afraid of their
economics classes? Why are students apprehensive about
introductory economics courses? An empirical investigation.
The American Economist,46(2), 31–44. https://doi.
org/10.1177/056943450204600203.
Boettke, P. J. (2012). Living Economics. Independent Institute.
Bolt, J., & Van Zanden, J. L. (2024). Maddison-style estimates of the
evolution of the world economy: A new 2023 update. Journal
of Economic Surveys Maddison project database, version 2020.
Early View:1–41. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/
maddison/research.
Borjas, G. J. (2016, October 1). Yes, immigration hurts American workers.
Politico.https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-
clinton-immigration-economy- unemployment-jobs-214216/.
Burns, S. A., & Wyld, D. C. (2023). Candyland economics: Finding
the sweet spot to better teach the economics of international trade
through an interactive, fun, and delicious game. European Journal
of Education and Pedagogy,4(5), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.24018/
ejedu.2023.4.5.703.
Caplan, B. (2011). The myth of the rational voter: why democracies
choose bad policies-new edition. In The myth of the rational voter.
Princeton University Press.
Carlyle, T. (1849). Occasional discourse on the Negro question. In
Fraser’s magazine for town and country (December 1849) (pp. 672–
673). https://cruel.org/econthought/texts/carlyle/carlodnq.html.
Diamond, J. M. (1998). Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of
Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years.Vintage.
Dutt, P., Mitra, D., & Ranjan, P. (2009). International trade and
unemployment: Theory and cross-national evidence. Journal of
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 10
Burns et al. Take Us to Your Economists: Teaching Economics Through a (Hypothetical) Alien Invasion
International Economics,78(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jinteco.2009.02.005.
Ehrlich, P. R. (1978). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to Choose: 1980. Secker and
War bur g .
Geerling, W. (2012). Bringing the ‘dismal science’ to life: Teaching
economics through multimedia. International Review of Eco-
nomics Education,11(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1477-3880
(15)30010-4.
Gold, H., & Gold, S. (2010). Beat the market: An interactive microe-
conomics simulation. The Journal of Economic Education,41(2),
216–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220481003613920.
Hayek, F. A. (1937). Economics and knowledge. Economica,4(13), 33–
54. https://doi.org/10.2307/2548786.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic
Review,35(4), 519–530.
Hayek, F. A. (1976). Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Volume 1. University
of Chicago Press.
Hayek, F. A. (1991). The Fatal Conceit. University of Chicago Press.
Hubbard, R. G., & O’Brien, A. P. (2008). Economics. Pearson Education.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2006). Neighborhood crime and young males’ job
opportunity. The Journal of Law and Economics,49(1), 249–283.
Johnson, S. G., Zhang, J., & Keil, F. C. (2022). Win-win denial:
The psychological underpinnings of zero-sum thinking. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General,151(2), 455.
Kornai, J. (2013). Dynamism, Rivalry, and the Surplus Economy: Two
Essays on the Nature of Capitalism. Oxford University Press.
Levitt, S. D. (2017). The economics of crime. Journal of Political Econ-
omy,125(6), 1920–1925.
Lillis, K. B., & Fisher, K. (2023, January 12). US Government has
Received more than 350 New UFO Reports. CNN. https://www.cnn.
com/2023/01/12/politics/us-government-ufo- reports/index.html.
Malthus, T. R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. J.Johnson.
Mankiw, N. G. (1998). Principles of Microeconomics (Vol. 1). Elsevier.
McCloskey, D. N. (2010). The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of
Commerce. University of Chicago Press.
McCloskey, D. N., & Carden, A. (2020). Leave Me alone and I’ll Make
you Rich. University of Chicago Press.
Mises, L. (1920). Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.
Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Auburn University.
Nordhaus, W. D. (2004). Schumpeterian Profits in the American Econ-
omy: Theory and Measurement (Working Paper). National Bureau
of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_
papers/w10433/w10433.pdf.
Nye, J. V. C. (2018, February 5). Standards of Living and Modern
Economic Growth. Econlib. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/
StandardsofLivingandModernEconomicGrowth.html.
Our World in Data. (n.d.). World GDP over the Last Two Millen-
nia.OurWorldinData.https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-
gdp-over-the- last-two-millennia.
Phipps, B. J., & Clark, J. E. (1993). Attitudes toward economics: Uni-
or multidimensional? Journal of Economic Education,24(Summer),
195–212.
Powell, B. (2014). Out of Poverty: Sweatshops in the Global Economy.
Cambridge University Press.
Ricardo, D. (1817). The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol.
1: Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Online Library of
Liberty.
Romo, V., & Chappell, B. (2023, July 27). US Recovered Non-Human
“Biologics” from UFO Crash Sites, Former Intel Official Says.
NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190390376/ufo-hearing-
non-human- biologics-uaps.
Roser, M. (2023, August 27). Extreme Poverty: How Far Have We Come,
and How Far do We Still Have to Go?.OurWorldinData.https://
ourworldindata.org/extreme- poverty-in-brief.
Sabin, P. (2013). The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble
over Earth’s Future. Yale University Press.
Settlage, D. M., & Wollscheid, J. R. (2019). The invisible hand in action–
an interactive classroom experience. Journal of Economic Teaching,
4(1), 41–59.
Simon, J. L. (1996). The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton University Press.
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations: Volume One. Strahan and Cadell.
Soper, J. C., & Walstad, W. (1983). On measuring economic attitudes.
Journal of Economic Education,14(Fall), 5–17.
Weede, E. (2005). Balance of Power, Globalization and the Capitalist
Pea ce. Liberal-Verlag.
World Bank. (n.d.). Pover ty . World Bank. www.worldbank.org/en/topic/
poverty.
Vol 6 | Issue 2 | March 2025 11
