For politicians, depicting the conflict between right and left as a matter of markets vs. governments is convenient. It allows liberals to portray their opponents as anarcho-capitalists who believe that the fire department should be privatized, and lets conservatives pretend their rivals want the government to make every medical decision for its people. So long as this either-or binary paradigm is accepted by the voters, politicians don’t need an intellect capable of explaining difficult and nuanced policy trade-offs — instead they simply need the money to run ad campaigns reminding voters of the past successes and failures of governments or markets.

It is popular wisdom that immigrants are a drain upon our country. They’re stereotyped as either violent criminals, diseased, or wards of the state. We’re told that they steal American jobs, put a strain on our natural resources, and fail to integrate into our society. As immigration reform begins working its way through Congress, (and as Arizona goes insane), it is important to set the record straight and review the reasons why expanding legal immigration is in the interests of the United States.

It has been common for economists to tolerate the blather of competitiveness, not only because there are practical difficulties with trying to educate non-economists on comparative advantage and the mechanics of free markets, but also because it is commonly believed that such rhetoric can be harnessed in support of good policies. If I am worried about the large negative externalities posed by global warming, and believe it is in the U.S. or the world’s best interest for America to invest in public energy research, then what harm is there if others believe that such expenditures are necessary to “win” against China?

In the previous article, I tried to explain the core logic behind why trade is mutually beneficial, and not a “competition” as the Obama Administration has been describing it. At some level, many non-economists seem to accept the argument I offered, but retain some lingering doubt. They concede that free trade is beneficial (or is at least necessary to avoid some greater loss) but they still cannot shake the feeling that trade must have winners and losers. After all, isn’t our growing trade deficit with China evidence that we are being “beaten?”

It is tempting to blame consultants and their ilk for the troubles that Dubai faces today. Surely, if my experience was at all typical, Western consulting firms are derelict in their duty as advisers to the United Arab Emirates. But I would argue that consultants are a product of their surroundings, not the other way around. Prior to the recent meltdown, which had commentators everywhere wondering if Dubai would destroy the fragile recovery that the banking sector has eked out, Boston Consulting Group’s top brass was extolling the virtues of the Middle East and the stability it would provide to the world’s financial markets. And why not? Every recommendation that encourages more expenditures by clients offers up greater opportunity for future cases. If Dubai’s companies lack the internal resources or motivation to poke the conclusions made by their rented consultants, if they reward optimism and penalize pessimism, they should not be surprised when they receive cheery, but flimsy advice.

The city was strange and the society was unnerving, but what disturbed me most about my Dubai experience was my job as a business consultant for the Boston Consulting Group.

The White House has announced plans to host a conference in Florida on April 15 during which President Obama will unveil his vision for the U.S. space program. If recent moves by the administration are any indication, this new vision will significantly curtail public funding for space activity. The president is working hard to spin the upcoming change as a transition rather than a cut, and perhaps for good reason: He is unlikely to find a receptive audience in Florida, long a recipient of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s largess.

I settled in a studio apartment on the thirteenth floor of an apartment complex in a western, unfinished area of the city. It was simple but spacious, and despite my zeal to be as frugal as I could, was still far more than I needed to satisfy my college student tastes. Still, my coworkers laughed at the apartment as the type of place an Indian engineer would live in — not a flophouse by any means, but clearly not the level of luxury a white person should treat himself to.

Health care protesters are an unruly lot. They’ve broken windows. They’ve sent threatening letters to congressmen. They’ve called representatives bad names and spat at them. By the standards of American politics, this is small potatoes, and like everything else, it too shall pass.

I hadn’t expected much coming out of college. I knew that recessions were not kind to the young and inexperienced, so I was surprised when I received an offer from the Boston Consulting Group to work as a business consultant in Dubai.