Economics makes no claims about what items, experiences or feelings should be demanded. It’s impossible to say that the students can’t value seeing a 95 on their test or that workers shouldn’t value not touching their retirement accounts. It’s actually a good thing when counterparties want to optimize different variables because it reduces the need to compromise, as the author brilliantly demonstrated in the anecdotes about test scoring and tax-advantaged accounts, and this kind of negotiation is modeled by economists.<p>The cost of obtaining and trusting information also explains a lot of “irrational” behavior, and it is modeled by economists.<p>Finally, I’ll note there are markets where buyers and sellers rationally prefer money and consistently act on that preference — simple models are sometimes useful, just like simple approaches in other fields.
Econ students or not the prof should have failed the complainers for not understanding "the material" (in this case the clear scoring rubric).<p>I remember a physics exam of the sort "here are three questions; you have four hours answer one". I couldn't answer any so just struggled for a while on the first; I ended up with 25% for work shown and, to my astonishment, the only passing grade.<p>(BTW the big lesson from that, which has been useful all my professional life, is "show your work". It means I can come back to it later, or I can collaborate with / ask for help from another person, who can show me where I'm a bozo or forgetting something or need to learn something).