Why you shouldn't study economics

Some national cable TV trade association has been running ads in the Metro saying, "Cable provides hundreds of thousands of solid, stable jobs." The signs show a young man dressed like a cable guy, holding his twin toddlers in his arms.

To whom is this ad directed? Consumers? It seems unlikely. One would think that an appeal to consumers would focus on hundreds of thousands of entertaining, informative shows on cable. No, the people who care about solid, stable jobs (beyond their own) are politicians and regulators beholden to them.

And why are those jobs so solid and stable? Because cable is the king of entertainment, rolling in revenue from an audience delighted with the provided service? Maybe, but why advertise that? That would just be gloating (and a little obscure gloating, at that). But perhaps, just perhaps, cable jobs are so solid and stable because competition is throttled, such that dissatisifed consumers have no real alternative to the official-lobbying incumbent. And in that case, wouldn't the message of the ad read, "Dear public official, please keep using your power to transfer money from the public at large to the fraction of the population in the cable industry"?

You shouldn't study economics because, if you do, you can be irritated, day after day, by a picture of a dad with his cute kids.