3 ms·

Have you read many peer reviewed economics papers? Or even college economics textbooks? They make same arguments about well being, dead weight losses, etc. A

Have you read many peer reviewed economics papers? Or even college economics textbooks? They make same arguments about well being, dead weight losses, etc. And they are full of weak assertions and sloppy logic. Peer review can be a process for eliminating error, but it can also be a process for replicating error. Where does your faith in academia economists come from? Have you read a bunch of peer reviewed papers, and decided that they have better logic and reason than the writings of a top econ-blogger ( like Winterspeak ( http://www.winterspeak.com/ http://www.winterspeak.com/ )? Also note that while econlib is funded by the Liberty Fund, most academic economists are substantially funded by the government. There is potential for bias everywhere, let's worry about what people say. Of course, I also think Henderson is wrong in one of his points. GDP is total national income times a price deflator. If government spending does not result in more productive output, then that will show up in the price deflator, and "real gdp" shouldn't rise. At least in theory. The real problem with the GDP statistics is that the calculation of the price deflator is riddled with methodological problems.

timr 17y ago
"Have you read many peer reviewed economics papers? Or even college economics textbooks? They make same arguments....also note that while econlib is funded by the Liberty Fund, most academic economists are substantially funded by the government. There is potential for bias everywhere." Economics papers are reviewed by other economists before publication, and government research funding doesn't dictate political ideology. Also, real economics papers aren't opinion pieces, disguised as "articles" in a "library" of economics.
- bokonist 17y ago
  As I said before, peer review means nothing to me, because peer review replicates error just as much as it replicates truth. In general, a piece of writing can contain facts (ex. the stock market crashed in 2009), interpretations of facts (ex. President x's policies reduced unemployment), and oughts (ex. leisure is inherently good). The line between the three can often be blurry. Henderson's piece contains facts, interpretations, and oughts. Most academic papers contain facts, interpretations, and oughts. Denigrating something as merely an "opinion" piece is simply a cheap and uninformative way of saying that you disagree with someone's interpretation of the facts. and government research funding doesn't dictate political ideology Ha! Future economists are selected by present economists based on their interpretation of the facts. Present economists were selected by past economists. The grant system was originally setup by the FDR administration and Vannevar Bush, who all believed in a powerful state managed by technocratic experts. So just as the Liberty Fund tries replicates libertarian interpretations of the facts, academic system tends to replicate the statist interpretations of the facts that the founders of the system believed in. And you still didn't answer my original question. How many peer reviewed economics papers have you read through and carefully thought about? Do you have a favorite paper or two?

timr 17y ago

"Have you read many peer reviewed economics papers? Or even college economics textbooks? They make same arguments....also note that while econlib is funded by the Liberty Fund, most academic economists are substantially funded by the government. There is potential for bias everywhere." Economics papers are reviewed by other economists before publication, and government research funding doesn't dictate political ideology. Also, real economics papers aren't opinion pieces, disguised as "articles" in a "library" of economics.

bokonist 17y ago
As I said before, peer review means nothing to me, because peer review replicates error just as much as it replicates truth. In general, a piece of writing can contain facts (ex. the stock market crashed in 2009), interpretations of facts (ex. President x's policies reduced unemployment), and oughts (ex. leisure is inherently good). The line between the three can often be blurry. Henderson's piece contains facts, interpretations, and oughts. Most academic papers contain facts, interpretations, and oughts. Denigrating something as merely an "opinion" piece is simply a cheap and uninformative way of saying that you disagree with someone's interpretation of the facts. and government research funding doesn't dictate political ideology Ha! Future economists are selected by present economists based on their interpretation of the facts. Present economists were selected by past economists. The grant system was originally setup by the FDR administration and Vannevar Bush, who all believed in a powerful state managed by technocratic experts. So just as the Liberty Fund tries replicates libertarian interpretations of the facts, academic system tends to replicate the statist interpretations of the facts that the founders of the system believed in. And you still didn't answer my original question. How many peer reviewed economics papers have you read through and carefully thought about? Do you have a favorite paper or two?