Economists speak the wrong language. We sit in economics class and hear the phrase “comparative advantage” and muster through drawing demand and supply graphs, but these concepts are mere abstract illusions. There is no relevance. My co-author, Brian Greco, and I aim to change the way economics is spoken. Economics is not just the allocation of scarce resources. It is a lens through which to view the world. When you put on this lens, economics becomes relevant. It becomes personal. It becomes something that is exciting to learn.
    What do Katniss Everdeen and hunky heartthrobs Peeta and Gale have to do with economics? Everything. In the “Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” President Snow announces because it is the Quarter Quell, a special anniversary of the Hunger Games, tributes will be reaped from each districts’ past pool of victors. We have two sets of victors. First are the career victors, who commit their lives to training for the Hunger Games. These tributes are strong, intimidating and thirst for victory. The second is a collection of outliers with eccentric skills. For example, Peeta’s skills are lifting bread flour and painting camouflage. Then there’s Beetee and Wiress, whose only skills are being familiar with electrical wiring and force fields. Based on the random skills each tribute possesses, the odds do not look to be in favor for the outliers. Despite this, somehow, they prevail.
    Now, let’s put on our economic lens and see how economics applies. The career victors have absolute advantage in strength and combat. They produce these goods or skills more efficiently than any other tributes. The group of outliers has comparative advantage because they each specialize in one skill. Comparative advantage in this sense refers to the group’s ability to produce a particular good or skill with a lower cost. Each tribute in this group specializes in a particular skill. When they join forces together, their range of skills outweighs the skills of the career tributes. In other words, they are better off than the career tributes because specialization allows each individual to focus on the one skill at which he or she excels.  
    The game itself promotes an economic term known as “game theory.”  Game theory is strategic decision making based on another party’s decisions. The tributes self select into teams and base their decisions off the moves of the other teams. Katniss and her team seek refuge on the water because the other team pushed them there. What the career tributes fail to realize is that the center of the clock is an advantageous position. From this position, Katniss and her team are able to deduce that the game operates on a clock, and the hour hand delivers a deadly attack to the tributes.  
   So why was Katniss always going to prevail? Forget the fact that she is the heroine of the series. Economics can guide us to the answer. Katniss, despite being weaker in combat skills, had the advantage. The object of the game was never to kill; rather, it was to survive. Katniss understood this and also understood the need to find allies who specialized in their specific skills. Thus, she assembled a group of tributes who specialized in skills for which they possessed comparative advantage. The collective advantage across skillsets in Katniss’s group outweighed the advantage the career tributes possessed in producing just one good — combat.
    The perception when watching the film is that Katniss and her group were at a disadvantage, but Katniss always had the advantage. Only through economic analysis are we able to see that the odds were ever in her favor.