Q: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. They just sit back and wait for the invisible hand to do it.

On 1 December 1999 riots rocked the normally sedate American city of Seattle. An estimated 50,000 protesters closed in on a World Trade Organization (WTO) free trade meeting. Patches of violence and looting broke out and a state of emergency was declared. Police in riot gear showered demonstrators with tear gas and pepper spray. The National Guard was called in and a curfew imposed. The city, a wealthy benefactor of the country's strong period of economic growth, was left reeling from the biggest protests since the Vietnam War.

Many commentators leapt to dismiss the rioters' anti-free market sentiments. The claim was that they didn't understand the benefits of trade or the WTO's job in making it work. That they didn't understand how the WTO improved justice in the global markets. The Economist magazine described them as a ‘furious rag-bag of antiglobalisation protestors [that] … barely understood what the organisation was’. They were also attacked because they supported a variety of causes. Some wanted better environment protection, some wanted labour protection, while others wanted to protect local industries. But while the protesters were criticised for ‘not having a clear message’ and missing the subtleties of arguments for the WTO, many commentators could be criticised for missing the broad brushstrokes.