In “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” economist Bryan Caplan examines differences between the way economists and non-economists view the world.Because of the make-work bias, many voters see increased labor efficiency as a bad thing. Economists see a nation’s prosperity as a result of production, and the public sees prosperity as a result of employment.Because of the anti-foreign bias, many voters fear increased trade with foreigners. While most economists see trade across national borders as identical to trade across state borders, much of the public sees international trade as inherently damaging.Because of the anti-market bias, many voters are distrustful of the market mechanism. While most economists see the market as an efficient, fair way to distribute resources, the public is more likely to favor government calculations.The fourth filter distorting non-economists’ view of the economy is the pessimistic bias. Economists are relatively more likely to believe future generations will have a higher standard of living than present generations.This bias extends into the present. Economists are more likely to believe jobs created in the American economy pay well, according to the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy.The only time non-economists are likely to overestimate economic conditions is when considering the “good old days” of the past.As enlightenment philosopher David Hume noted in a 1742 essay, “the humour of blaming the present, and admiring the past, is strongly rooted in human nature, and has an influence even on persons endued with he profoundest judgment and most extensive learning.”The natural tendency to look upon the past with nostalgia is only intensified by the other biases. When voters consider the constant churn converting obsolete jobs into more productive jobs, the increased interaction with international entities, and even the voluntary exchanges of the market as something to be feared, it is easy to see how the majority of voters will view the economic future as a terrifying nightmare we will one day be doomed to live in.To be sure, tremendous challenges haunt the economic present.Borrowers are being forced to shoulder the weight of increased interest rates. Massive decreases in housing prices are boring holes into the assets of homeowners that escape foreclosure. Unprecedented losses on Wall Street have erased more than a decade of stock market growth and pushed the dream of retirement away from many of our nation’s seniors. Many credible sources predict double-digit unemployment will become an uncomfortable facet of America’s short-term future.And, worst of all, rather than addressing the causes of the crisis, the government has decided to dramatically increase spending to protect the politically well-connected. Before the crisis, our generation was doomed to spend its lifetime enslaved to the burden of $50 trillion of unfunded liabilities — a debt that will be exceedingly costly to repay.After the fiscal stimulus — an “impotent and unpredictable stabilization tool,” according to the most popular Economics principles textbook — it is clear our generation will shoulder the damages of taxation without even the questionable benefits of government services.Yet, despite these challenges, it is worth remembering that economic history has, for the most part, been a story of progress.Six hundred years ago, humanity lacked the printing press. One hundred years ago, we scraped by without antibiotics. Ten years ago, we bumbled along the Web without RSS feeds.It is hard to imagine life without the printing press, antibiotics, or RSS feeds. It is not unreasonable to assume future generations will make similar claims about conveniences we cannot yet imagine.The future is to be embraced, not feared.Daniel Morgan is a 21-year-old economics major from Baton Rouge.—-Contact Daniel Morgan  at [email protected]