Ah, economics—such a noble science, born amidst the clattering looms of the Industrial Revolution, and heralded by philosophers and scholars as the key to unlocking wealth and prosperity. Over the last two centuries, economics has built for itself a glittering palace of theories, each one loftier than the last, promising to explain the secret mechanics of poverty, riches, and growth. But wait—have any of these grand ideas actually “worked”? Upon closer inspection, one must ask: has a single country ever prospered by diligently applying any of these economic marvels? My humble analysis says no, for economics, my friends, is more like a fortune-teller at a carnival—entertaining, mysterious, but in the end, guessing at best. It provides wonderful explanations of what “already” happened, a bit like an expert coroner after the autopsy is complete. As for preventing the death in the first place—well, that’s another story.

We’ve all heard of the illustrious figures—Adam Smith with his “invisible hand,” that supposed maestro guiding markets to their golden harmony, or Keynes, furiously scribbling about government intervention as if it could solve every downturn. These economic prophets have been worshipped in universities, their theories defended with the fervor of zealots. Yet oddly enough, despite their best efforts, there isn’t a single country that stands tall today, waving the flag of prosperity, because it obediently followed any one economic script. No, the real story of national success has always belonged to non-economist politicians and their shenanigans—the real movers and shakers. These are the ones who, in all their chaotic wisdom (or lack thereof), dictated policies, struck deals, or simply stumbled into fortune by sheer chance. Economics, for its part, arrives afterwards with a tidy explanation of what went down—ever the dutiful butler cleaning up after the wild party.

Take, for example, the sprawling British Empire. Do we really believe it grew fat and powerful by soberly following laissez-faire principles? Hardly. It wasn’t economic theory that built that empire; it was muskets, colonies, and a not-so-innocent thirst for natural resources. Adam Smith’s ghost may whisper “free markets,” but history shows it was the brutal power grab, not the theory, that made Britannia rule the waves. The same can be said for the rise of the United States. No amount of economic gospel brought the nation to its industrial glory—it was grit, innovation, political trickery, and more than a pinch of interventionism that paved the way. Smith and Keynes could only look on, probably scratching their heads, while real-world events unfurled in delightful disregard of their hallowed texts.

On the flip side, let’s consider the economic disasters of history. Did these nations falter because they placed their faith in the wrong economic deities? Oh no, dear reader—their downfall lay not in some innocent mistake of choosing the wrong theoretical horse. The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn’t solely because of a doomed command economy (though it certainly didn’t help); it was because its leaders lost the political plot. Economists simply performed a post-mortem on the corpse, nodding sagely and saying, “Yes, yes, the market was inefficient.” A brilliant observation—once the empire had already crumbled into dust.

Perhaps the real issue with economics lies in its very nature. Unlike the hard sciences, which can repeat their experiments and get the same result, economics deals with human behavior—an unruly and unpredictable creature. Economic theories, when presented with flair, look convincing. But they’re only guesses—intelligent guesses, no doubt—based on the situation at hand. They explain patterns, sure, but as for offering a foolproof guide to future prosperity? Don’t count on it. Theories age like bread, not wine, and soon enough, they’re thrown out, replaced by the next big idea, which will soon meet the same fate.

In truth, economics shines brightest when it stays in its lane—when it confines itself to analyzing what “already” happened rather than telling nations how to steer their ships. History has no record of any country deliberately following an economic theory to prosperity. Quite the contrary—nations that succeeded did so because their leaders made pragmatic decisions, often ignoring the prevailing economic wisdom, and responding to the messy reality of their times. The real-world heroes are not the economists but the politicians, the generals, and, sometimes, just plain luck.

So here we stand in the 21st century, where economics once again sits on its throne, its practitioners predicting everything from climate disaster to income inequality. But if we look closely, these predictions are more art than science, more speculation than certainty. The actual engines of change—political will, social upheavals, and those wonderful random events called “life”—will continue to outwit any well-laid economic plan.

And so, dear reader, let us tip our hats to economics—a fascinating subject, a grand spectacle, and quite the intellectual exercise. But let us not pretend it holds the keys to a nation’s destiny. It is, at best, a well-spoken guide who arrives after the fact, offering a clever summary of what’s already gone wrong—or right. But the actual writing of history? That’s in the hands of politicians, leaders, and fate itself. Economics gives us the jargon, but politics, as always, writes the punchline.

-Mahesh Zagade, IAS(rtd)