8 ms·

Economists? Are those the same people that make assertions based on observations & models lacking legitimate control groups? Beyond the fact that social scienc

by fixxer 11y ago

Economists? Are those the same people that make assertions based on observations & models lacking legitimate control groups? Beyond the fact that social sciences are generally not scientific and highly subject to groupthink, I don't think they're wrong in the sense that comparative advantages exist in the Ricardian/Smith sense. However, if they dont account for currency manipulation, tax loopholes, and labour safety standards, I think those same economists lose a lot of credibility clinging to this fantasy that free trade as we know it is actually free.

bko 11y ago
Currency manipulation: Devaluing your currency such that you can sell goods artificially cheap to your competitors. In other words, Americans not paying enough. Also known as quantitive easing when US does it. Tax loopholes: tax code In regards to labor safety standards, every country has a right to impose their own standards based on cultural norms. There is no universal set of standards that every country can agree upon. Would you really want to give up the autonomy with some universal code? As countries become wealthier, they value health and safety to a greater extent and the law changes accordingly.
- fixxer 11y ago
  At no point in my statement did I echo Trumpism or political rhetoric. I was speaking generally about things that are rarely included in the "free trade is great" line of thought. You are absolutely correct that every country has the right to set their laws and operate as they see fit. However, their trading partners have the right to consider the implications of those policies on their own objectives. I have no interest in changing anything. My opinion is that when someone says "economists nearly universally agree on X", I generally think the best course of action is to lift up one's feet to avoid stepping in bullshit. EDIT: Changed a word.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > My argument is that when someone says "economists nearly universally agree on X", I generally think the best course of action is to lift up one's feet to avoid stepping in bullshit. That's not much of an argument, in fact it's not one at all. You don't like or trust economists, ok, that's an opinion, but it's not an argument.
JamilD 11y ago
To your second point, Joe Biden's former economic adviser wrote an op-ed in the Times [0] to this effect; that free trade is hardly free. "… various countries with whom we compete have historically managed their currencies to gain a price advantage (i.e., they keep their currency low to boost their exports to us and suppress ours to them), and this has long been a source of our persistently large trade deficits." [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/the-era-of-free-trade-might-be-over-thats-a-good-thing.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/the-era-of-free-tr...
- bko 11y ago
  And as (pre-political) Nobel Laureate and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote: > Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. [0] [0] http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~lyamane/poptrade.html http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~lyamane/poptrade.html
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Are those the same people that make assertions based on observations & models lacking legitimate control groups? You seem to be discussing climate scientists, actually. I guess the NYT shouldn't take their consensus seriously either? However, if they dont account for currency manipulation, tax loopholes, and labour safety standards, I think those same economists lose a lot of credibility clinging to this fantasy that free trade as we know it is actually free. Yes they do. Currency manipulation is well understood - it's a country giving things away to other countries. I don't know what you mean by "tax loopholes". Labor safety standards are also well understood by economists. Here's one article on the topic: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/JobSafety.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/JobSafety.html Economists are also well aware that trade is far from free. For example, Bryan Caplan is a famous advocate of increasing free trade in labor (via open borders). There is a general economic consensus that occupational licensing, as practiced in the US, is exceedingly harmful: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensin... https://www.aei.org/publication/the-terrible-economic-burden-of-occupational-licensing/ https://www.aei.org/publication/the-terrible-economic-burden... https://www.nber.org/chapters/c0601.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c0601.pdf
- pdonis 11y ago
  > You seem to be discussing climate scientists, actually. I thought what he said applied to both climate scientists and economists. :-) > I guess the NYT shouldn't take their consensus seriously either? Exactly.
- chillwaves 11y ago
  I'm sure that 9 out of 10 priests believe in the existence of God as well, however the consensus does not strengthen the fundamental assertion. You cannot say the same about climate change scientists. I hope this example has made the difference between economics and science clear.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I hope this example has made the difference between economics and science clear. It definitively has not. Rather than making confusing analogies, why not just state explicitly the difference?
baddox 11y ago
Let's entertain your assumption that a near perfect consensus among economists isn't a reliable hint about the realities of the economy. Why should I trust you or some other group of people over the economists, especially when the economists' arguments for free trade match my understanding and intuition?
- fixxer 11y ago
  You shouldn't, but you should embrace skepticism and realize that is not science. If you trust individuals making assertions based on unscientific methods because you value each individual's aptitude in the subject, fine. That is expert opinion. If you trust an unscientific group consensus based on credentials that in actuality are worth far less than society values, then you're being naive.
  - baddox 11y ago
    I certainly wouldn't argue against skepticism, even of claims supported by what you consider to be science. My point is that there is no other group of people that I'm aware of who are doing reserach on the economy that you do consider to be scientific.
    - fixxer 11y ago
      Personally, I trust practitioners of economics more than economists.
  - bko 11y ago
    The arguments for free trade are based in logic and reason. How could someone be better off with fewer choices as to where and from whom to trade with? On an ethical standpoint, how could making goods more expensive for everyone in order to benefit a few justifiable?
    - fixxer 11y ago
      True, logic and reason are the basis of these arguments. That is not the same as saying there is only one set of logic and reasoning from which an opinion could be derived. > How could someone be better off with fewer choices as to where and from whom to trade with? Well, if you're talking about comparative advantage due to something simple (like a mineral or natural resource without considering externalities from extraction), I'd agree. If you're talking about labor costs at $20/hour vs $0.20/hour, then one could argue that without replacement jobs at $20/hour for those being replaced by cheaper foreign workers, then the only effect will be depression of domestic wages to retain competitiveness. Now, that might be nominal over the long run, but based on the US experience, it doesn't seem like social welfare has improved from more choice in trading partners. Our trading partners, however, are doing much better. Wage growth domestically has been stagnant in real terms. > On an ethical standpoint, how could making goods more expensive for everyone in order to benefit a few justifiable? If those costs account for the complete impact, then it would not be justifiable to make goods more expensive. If there are externalities and systematic impacts, then some might argue barriers to free trade are justifiable. Keep in mind that I don't completely disagree with free trade. I personally despise unions (though, mostly just the public sector unions; trade unions are mostly OK with me, though I support right to work) and I think they share blame in some circumstances... But, my personal opinions do not prevent me from seeing drawbacks to the free trade at scale. The concept is very cultish and that is a clue right there that we should all be looking at it more critically.
stevetrewick 11y ago
>lacking legitimate control groups? There are legitimate control groups for this particular issue. There are states that do not adopt some semblance of free trade. Like Venezuela, for instance. Also, how do you know they didn't account for those things when forming their opinions?
- fixxer 11y ago
  No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. Calling Venezuela a control for free trade in the United States is absurd. The number of variables that differ is insurmountable, from colonial history to Marxism. There are no controls in the study of economics like there are in pure sciences. That is why economic analysis is so inherently flawed.
hiram112 11y ago
Upvote. I think it was here someone said something like 'economists are the modern day clergy - paid by the rich to promote ideas that benefit the wealthy'.

by fixxer 11y ago

bko 11y ago

Currency manipulation: Devaluing your currency such that you can sell goods artificially cheap to your competitors. In other words, Americans not paying enough. Also known as quantitive easing when US does it. Tax loopholes: tax code In regards to labor safety standards, every country has a right to impose their own standards based on cultural norms. There is no universal set of standards that every country can agree upon. Would you really want to give up the autonomy with some universal code? As countries become wealthier, they value health and safety to a greater extent and the law changes accordingly.

fixxer 11y ago
At no point in my statement did I echo Trumpism or political rhetoric. I was speaking generally about things that are rarely included in the "free trade is great" line of thought. You are absolutely correct that every country has the right to set their laws and operate as they see fit. However, their trading partners have the right to consider the implications of those policies on their own objectives. I have no interest in changing anything. My opinion is that when someone says "economists nearly universally agree on X", I generally think the best course of action is to lift up one's feet to avoid stepping in bullshit. EDIT: Changed a word.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > My argument is that when someone says "economists nearly universally agree on X", I generally think the best course of action is to lift up one's feet to avoid stepping in bullshit. That's not much of an argument, in fact it's not one at all. You don't like or trust economists, ok, that's an opinion, but it's not an argument.

JamilD 11y ago

To your second point, Joe Biden's former economic adviser wrote an op-ed in the Times [0] to this effect; that free trade is hardly free. "… various countries with whom we compete have historically managed their currencies to gain a price advantage (i.e., they keep their currency low to boost their exports to us and suppress ours to them), and this has long been a source of our persistently large trade deficits." [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/the-era-of-free-trade-might-be-over-thats-a-good-thing.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/opinion/the-era-of-free-tr...

bko 11y ago
And as (pre-political) Nobel Laureate and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote: > Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment. [0] [0] http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~lyamane/poptrade.html http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~lyamane/poptrade.html

yummyfajitas 11y ago

Are those the same people that make assertions based on observations & models lacking legitimate control groups? You seem to be discussing climate scientists, actually. I guess the NYT shouldn't take their consensus seriously either? However, if they dont account for currency manipulation, tax loopholes, and labour safety standards, I think those same economists lose a lot of credibility clinging to this fantasy that free trade as we know it is actually free. Yes they do. Currency manipulation is well understood - it's a country giving things away to other countries. I don't know what you mean by "tax loopholes". Labor safety standards are also well understood by economists. Here's one article on the topic: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/JobSafety.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/JobSafety.html Economists are also well aware that trade is far from free. For example, Bryan Caplan is a famous advocate of increasing free trade in labor (via open borders). There is a general economic consensus that occupational licensing, as practiced in the US, is exceedingly harmful: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensing_report_final_nonembargo.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/licensin... https://www.aei.org/publication/the-terrible-economic-burden-of-occupational-licensing/ https://www.aei.org/publication/the-terrible-economic-burden... https://www.nber.org/chapters/c0601.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c0601.pdf

pdonis 11y ago
> You seem to be discussing climate scientists, actually. I thought what he said applied to both climate scientists and economists. :-) > I guess the NYT shouldn't take their consensus seriously either? Exactly.
chillwaves 11y ago
I'm sure that 9 out of 10 priests believe in the existence of God as well, however the consensus does not strengthen the fundamental assertion. You cannot say the same about climate change scientists. I hope this example has made the difference between economics and science clear.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I hope this example has made the difference between economics and science clear. It definitively has not. Rather than making confusing analogies, why not just state explicitly the difference?

baddox 11y ago

Let's entertain your assumption that a near perfect consensus among economists isn't a reliable hint about the realities of the economy. Why should I trust you or some other group of people over the economists, especially when the economists' arguments for free trade match my understanding and intuition?

fixxer 11y ago
You shouldn't, but you should embrace skepticism and realize that is not science. If you trust individuals making assertions based on unscientific methods because you value each individual's aptitude in the subject, fine. That is expert opinion. If you trust an unscientific group consensus based on credentials that in actuality are worth far less than society values, then you're being naive.
- baddox 11y ago
  I certainly wouldn't argue against skepticism, even of claims supported by what you consider to be science. My point is that there is no other group of people that I'm aware of who are doing reserach on the economy that you do consider to be scientific.
  - fixxer 11y ago
    Personally, I trust practitioners of economics more than economists.
- bko 11y ago
  The arguments for free trade are based in logic and reason. How could someone be better off with fewer choices as to where and from whom to trade with? On an ethical standpoint, how could making goods more expensive for everyone in order to benefit a few justifiable?
  - fixxer 11y ago
    True, logic and reason are the basis of these arguments. That is not the same as saying there is only one set of logic and reasoning from which an opinion could be derived. > How could someone be better off with fewer choices as to where and from whom to trade with? Well, if you're talking about comparative advantage due to something simple (like a mineral or natural resource without considering externalities from extraction), I'd agree. If you're talking about labor costs at $20/hour vs $0.20/hour, then one could argue that without replacement jobs at $20/hour for those being replaced by cheaper foreign workers, then the only effect will be depression of domestic wages to retain competitiveness. Now, that might be nominal over the long run, but based on the US experience, it doesn't seem like social welfare has improved from more choice in trading partners. Our trading partners, however, are doing much better. Wage growth domestically has been stagnant in real terms. > On an ethical standpoint, how could making goods more expensive for everyone in order to benefit a few justifiable? If those costs account for the complete impact, then it would not be justifiable to make goods more expensive. If there are externalities and systematic impacts, then some might argue barriers to free trade are justifiable. Keep in mind that I don't completely disagree with free trade. I personally despise unions (though, mostly just the public sector unions; trade unions are mostly OK with me, though I support right to work) and I think they share blame in some circumstances... But, my personal opinions do not prevent me from seeing drawbacks to the free trade at scale. The concept is very cultish and that is a clue right there that we should all be looking at it more critically.

stevetrewick 11y ago

>lacking legitimate control groups? There are legitimate control groups for this particular issue. There are states that do not adopt some semblance of free trade. Like Venezuela, for instance. Also, how do you know they didn't account for those things when forming their opinions?

fixxer 11y ago
No, I'm sorry but you are wrong. Calling Venezuela a control for free trade in the United States is absurd. The number of variables that differ is insurmountable, from colonial history to Marxism. There are no controls in the study of economics like there are in pure sciences. That is why economic analysis is so inherently flawed.

hiram112 11y ago

Upvote. I think it was here someone said something like 'economists are the modern day clergy - paid by the rich to promote ideas that benefit the wealthy'.