Economic Scholars Tackle Shared Value Systems and More

Charles Stucke

01-14-2026

Last semester, I taught a Daniels School undergraduate course, Economic Scholars, and wrote about my enthusiasm for the unique experience. The course featured deep group discussion and readings over dinner (provided to the evening class), and a chance for the selected students to earn up to $750 in scholarship money.

In fall 2025, my econ scholars tore into classical economic theory and related literature. They discussed, debated and devoured the material, so much so that I could see pieces of Ricardo stuck to the fronts of their teeth and Locke’s sinews ribboned between them. It was a bloody mess, but bloody good fun.

As we did, the scholars surfaced two related ideas again and again. First, how we choose to balance the pursuit of economic efficiency with its social policy implications, and second, how we do so upon a shared value system of respect for the law and democratic institutions.

We studied the theory of property, its value as derived from rents, and the redistribution of a portion of its value via taxes. We covered the tragedy of the commons to illustrate how property rights create value, and we studied Henry George’s land value tax to better understand how policy differences can cost or create social benefits. We discussed how the produce of our lives gets shared with society, and why we sometimes disagree about the systems we use to do that. Ella Wampler, Bella Hess and their peers jumped in with challenging views that made us think.

I asked what happens if disagreements arise about our common belief in democratic capitalism rather than from our views at the policy level. Rishit Basundhara immediately recognized that this put our civil society at risk of becoming one ruled by martial power (instead of by merit or consensus). Moksh Puri later doubled down on this observation by quoting Aristotle on tyranny born of greed. Those of us who know the 1987 film Wall Street recall Gordon Gekko’s famous quote, “Greed is good,” but perhaps only to a point. Perhaps that point comes when it threatens crucial social mores.

Purdue’s scholars quickly understood that a society’s or nation’s ability to unlock the real, long-term power of insights from the field of economics requires broad-based consensus on rule of law and issues of fairness, even when certain groups experience political loss.

We live in an era of rapid creation and redistribution of wealth, sweeping technological change and elevated political debate. We should all remember that our collective agreement depends on the core values of democracy, capitalism, property rights, liberty, freedom, rule of law and (no gasping from the Randian crowd) social welfare. Without the first six, we would likely be swimming in inefficiency. Without the last, we would likely lose the cooperation of large segments of our society, a moral and potentially real-world peril we can thoughtfully avoid.