"I’m an optimist, so I am hopeful. I don’t think Samuelsonian economics can be the long-run equilibrium of such an important field such as economics. I think that because of the two secret sins of Samuelsonian economics, the qualitative theorems and significance testing in the absence of the loss function, we can’t make scientific progress. We can do a lot of other stuff. We can take a look at tables and see how large schooling is in the national economy; that kind of thing is science. So I’m sure we can make some progress, off the center of the scientific stage of so-called mainstream Samuelsonian economics. An interesting concrete example of this was a presentation Ken Arrow made when he came to Iowa, where he was trying to make the obvious point that we shouldn’t spend all of our time in undergraduate economics preparing people for graduate school. This is a point that I have made over and over again, that we should be preparing students for life, for business and law school. Arrow said, “Look, the main argument for this is not very complicated: as we all know, half of 1 percent of our students, if that, go on to graduate school in economics, end of argument.” The argument is not special to Arrow, but the fact that it came from Arrow was very interesting. He didn’t come and say there is an existence theorem proof that there doesn’t exist some social welfare function such that blah blah blah. He didn’t do that. He said, “Look, here’s the number that shows obviously that the policy of making undergraduate programs into junior graduate programs is a mistake.”"