In ancient times, scholars emphasized inclusiveness and not sticking to one side. When studying poetry, one should appreciate the boldness of Li Bai as well as the profound nuances of Du Fu to understand the myriad forms of poetry; the same principle applies to studying economics, where one should not only recognize a single viewpoint.

Economics has no absolute truth, just as various schools of thought each have their own claims. Adam Smith spoke of the market's invisible hand, Marshall discussed supply and demand pricing, and Keynes advocated for state regulation; each has its merits, yet also its limitations. If one rigidly adheres to a single theory, it is akin to only studying Li Bai without learning about Du Fu, making it difficult to see the whole picture. This reflects the wisdom of harmony and diversity in traditional culture, where listening to multiple perspectives leads to clarity.

The principles of the world have their boundaries, and so do economic models. Seemingly perfect theories can always find counterexamples, just like the prisoner's dilemma breaks the perception of 'acting in one's own interest must benefit others'. This aligns with what classical studies state: excess is as bad as deficiency, and extreme situations lead to opposite outcomes. Any viewpoint that deviates from its premise and lacks constraints will become a fallacy.

I hope that everyone, while studying, does not blindly trust authority or rigidly adhere to dogma. When studying economics, one should draw from a wealth of sources to discern what to accept or reject, clarify the premises, and not follow blindly. This is the way of scholarly pursuit, embodying the wisdom passed down from ancient times, where understanding and action are unified.