In the same essay that contains the famous “Broken Window” fallacy, French economist Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) cautioned us to consider “That which is seen, and that which is not seen.” His words should be required reading for any politician, elected official, or government bureaucrat:

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference – the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come – at the risk of a small present evil.

Needless to say, those economists who advised Barack Obama on the $787 billion (before interest) “stimulus” plan, “cash for clunkers,” or his current raft of executive orders, as well as those like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman who prescribe more of the same snake oil, would fall into Bastiat’s “bad economist” category.

Please read the rest of my article for the American Spectator here:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/02/bad-economists-and-good-capita