This second round of full lockdowns has hit me harder than the others. I’ve become more pessimistic, I’ve been more tired, I haven’t been able to find the motivation to train, and my training gear seems to be crying behind the layer of dust that has accumulated on it from lack of use.

Earlier this week, I read an interesting interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson in The New York Times (you can read it here) in which he examines people’s declining trust in science, which has led to the proliferation of fake news, anti-vaccine movements, and even denialists of the current pandemic. Among the causes, he identifies people’s loss of curiosity, the preconceived biases of the few who remain curious (who only seek information to confirm their preconceptions), and the lack of impact science has delivered to the public (we should already be driving flying cars, right?).

We economists have also failed. Personally, I believe that the free market is the best system for allocating resources, a view that is also supported by macro- and microeconomic data. What do I mean by “best”? It’s simple: just look at one of the definitions of economics (which doesn’t refer to GDP, unemployment, or even money), in which the discipline is basically understood as “the pursuit of well-being with what we have available.” The free market has done more for health, poverty reduction, technological progress, leisure, and so on, than any other economic system in human history (Sala-i-Marti, 2002). However, it has failed to deliver on many of the promises it made, either due to the absence of a market or to market failures—problems that the system itself is unable to resolve on its own. Environmental damage, inequality, concentration of wealth, abuse of dominant market positions, and corruption, among other issues, are challenges for which we economists are responsible—whether by action or omission—and there is still much to be done. 

It is true that we are not the only ones to blame (nor the ones most to blame), but part of our moral responsibility is undoubtedly to improve the living conditions of those of us who live in our neighborhoods, our cities, our country, and so on. The search for solutions to problems we have been unable to resolve has led to the populist and short-sighted policies we see today, a lack of vision for the future, a constant erosion of institutions, the emergence of charlatans, and an almost sport-like disregard on the part of certain groups toward those of us who practice this profession. At this juncture, the challenge of convincing our society that we must improve the free market—not do away with it—becomes an uphill battle.

Given this assessment, what should be done? To rekindle enthusiasm for science, deGrasse proposes the following: launch a crewed mission to Mars in 2035. Team members should be no older than 30, which means all future astronauts would be in school today—what better incentive to get involved in science! Today’s test, next week’s group project, that assignment you’ve been putting off—everything will now have meaning and purpose. 

Not to be outdone, as far as we’re concerned, I’d also like to propose something: to help Chile reach a GDP per capita of US$40,000 (PPP) and reduce the Gini coefficient—after transfers and taxes—to 0.40 within 15 years. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No—Ireland, after a deep recession following the subprime crisis, did it.

To get myself motivated again, I also set a goal for myself: to finish the 2022 Pucón Ironman 70.3 (yes, I’m an optimist) in under 5.5 hours. Difficult? Yes. Challenging? Without a doubt. Achievable? With hard work, of course it is. 

Nathan Pincheira 

Chief Economist at FYNSA