GETTING STARTED IN ECONOMICS. The Wall Street Journal's Wednesday Free Feature (hie thee hence before it goes behind the fence) features a conversation between Company Mail sources Russell Roberts of Cafe Hayek and William J. Polley of Western Illinois. I like what I'm reading. Start at the end. This is WJP:

If economists do end up making movies and video games, I hope they include things like the development of institutions and the emergence of social order hand-in-hand with market order. Then, speaking out of my own rational self-interest as an economist, I hope that these ideas are clearly identified as economics somehow. I want the reaction of the consumer of these materials to be, "That's economics? It's nothing like the economics I learned in college." Then we can say, "You bet it's economics. Want to learn more?"

Do I hear an echo? Sounds like the Second Principle of Social Organization.

There's this, from RR:

Another airplane passenger story. I'm talking to the woman next to me and she asks me what I do. When I tell her I'm an economist, she says, "Too bad my husband isn't with me today, he'd love to talk to you." "Why's that?" I ask. "He's fascinated by the stock market," she replies. I had to tell her that I knew nothing about the stock market other than the virtues of indexed mutual funds. A useful thing to know -- one of the most useful insights of economics into personal finance -- but it would have made for a short conversation with her husband.

Story of my life. I get that question, or the one about interest rates, all the time. My response is usually "what's wrong with this picture?" (Answer: I wouldn't be in this sardine can on a discount ticket if I knew.) If the passenger asks, "what do you do?" I say "Economics is about sex, death, and why the lines are longest at the roller coaster." That's an excellent gambit for separating the interesting (to me) seatmates from the boring ones.

There's also this evidence of great minds thinking alike. RR:

Whenever I teach a seminar on basic economics, I always survey the audience: What proportion of the American labor force earns the minimum wage or less and what is the standard of living of the average American today relative to 100 years ago?

I do this also, on the first day of the introductory class. The results for fall 2002 are here. Today seems like a good day to comment on this year's results, as the Free Feature has the answers. As was the case in 2002, I told the students their answers would not affect their grade.

My first question: What proportion of the work force earns minimum wage? Of the 75 responses, the mean was 44.0 percent, the (divided by n-1) standard deviation was 18.7, the mode 35, the lowest estimate 12 percent, and the highest estimate 75 percent.

The reality: less than three percent of the work force earns minimum wage. (There is a teachable moment here. It's called "Do Not Generalize From Your Own Experience." Likely the bulk of the class has recently worked at a minimum wage job.)

Next: Are real living standards in the U.S. better or worse today than they were 100 years ago? 48 students offered better, 22 offered worse, 6 offered other choices.

The reality: Cornucopia.

I pose a third question as well: In a financial transaction, who benefits, the seller or the buyer? 28 respondents offered the seller, 9 the buyer, and 32 showed the initiative to answer both, and 7 offered a variant on "It depends." That's an encouraging note on which to begin the term. With the first hour exam approaching, the students are ready for some encouragement.