Simply bringing up the subject of economics can cause reactions of skepticism. The study of economics when compared to some of the “harder” sciences leaves a lot to be desired. Despite all the technology of the modern age professional economists can't seem to make accurate predictions for any any extent of time. In addition to that when compared to a defined science such as physics there are undeniable laws that you need to account for that help you make make accurate judgments on simple things such as how long it would take a ball to drop from a tree. There are no comparable hard and fast rules in economics that allow such easy forecasts to be made.
I believe Bastiat's theories are compared to most economic schools of thought hold undeniable logic. It might be helped that in many of his theories simply fight against common misconceptions by pointing out the glaring inadequacies in the theory such as the broken window fallacy which asserts that breaking a window increases the wealth of a nation as a whole. As opposed to many economists his argument relies on the use of basic arithmetic by pointing out the fact that if there is money wasted on things that could be avoided it is draining the available cash for other perhaps more healthy economic ventures.
This same school of thought goes to many of his theories which brings up the question where did he go right and others so wrong? As opposed to other economists such as Karl Marx who design a grand picture of a world where their version of economics fits in perfectly Bastiat simply uses basic logic to attack fallacious ideas. While not necessarily laws Bastiat brings some hard truths to the shaky ground that modern economics lies on.