Now, why is that funny?

Because it shows how deeply committed economists are to their models, sometimes, even more so than to reality itself, and I don’t think I’m exaggerating a single bit.

In economics, models are like maps. They are necessary to simplify reality, so we can better understand how things work—how people behave, how markets function, or how governments might influence economic outcomes. But models are not neutral. They reflect the assumptions and values of the people who build them.

Let’s take the example of the free-rider problem—a famous economic model used to explain why people might avoid contributing to public goods like clean air, national defence, or even group work.

The model assumes people act rationally by acting selfishly. And once you build a model on that assumption, you start to expect selfish behavior. Worse, you may begin to design policies that encourage it.

Jonathan Aldred, in his book “License to Be Bad,” argues that this model, originally meant to warn us, has shaped how we act. If we keep telling people that everyone will cheat if given the chance, they may start believing it and acting that way. So in this case, the model doesn’t just describe reality—it starts to create it.

This is where paradigms come in. As the Oxford Economics textbook explains, using Thomas Kuhn’s theory, a paradigm is a shared framework for thinking in a discipline. For centuries, economics was based on the classical paradigm: that markets are efficient and that individuals pursuing self-interest will produce the best outcomes.

But when the classical economic paradigm couldn’t explain events like the Great Depression in the 1930s of the 20th century, a new paradigm—Keynesian economics, one of the rare economic perspectives named after its founder, John Maynard Keynes—emerged.

Paradigm shifts in economics often happen because existing models fail to explain anomalies. But as Kuhn said, these shifts are hard. People, and that goes for economists too, resist changing the models they’ve been trained to use.

Dani Rodrik adds another critical point in his book Economic Rules. He says economics doesn’t have one model—it has many. And each model is like a tool in a toolbox. The real skill is not picking the best model, but knowing which model fits which situation. That means economists must make judgments, and those are not always purely technical. They’re also moral and political.

In economics, models play a crucial role in generating knowledge. But they also do more than that—they influence behaviour, shape policy, and reflect our values. That’s why, as Joan Robinson, a friend and friendly critic of John Maynard Keynes, said, “the purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.”