3 ms·
Exactly. It's like how I keep seeing people accusing "economists" (usually as an undefined group) with being concerned with "justifying the status quo". This, d
by snrplfth 10y ago
Exactly. It's like how I keep seeing people accusing "economists" (usually as an undefined group) with being concerned with "justifying the status quo". This, despite most economists having frequent, major disagreements with common current policies in many areas. What it tells me is that they're probably not really looking at the field as a whole.
It's the trouble with people making equivalences between "a particular person calling themselves an economist" and "economics". There are hundreds of thousands of people with economics degrees, it is trivially easy to find one who says what you want to hear. But then, that economist's words are often taken to reflective of economics as an entire field of study - regardless of the reasoning behind it, or how many other economists actually agree. So most economists may have totally sensible reasons for supporting Policy A, but when one dissenting economist supports Policy Not-A, the "consensus view" gets ignored. I don't know why this is. Maybe because people feel competent to judge economic reasoning in a way that they don't with other fields (and which might lead them to seek more opinions.)
- tcfunk 10y agoThis is interesting if true, and a little strange. As an example, I have a Computer Science degree, however I can't imagine anyone taking what I have to say about Computer Science to be reflective of the greater industry. I'm just a schmuck with a degree.
- snrplfth 10y agoI think maybe it has to do with what people are asked about, and with the level of uncertainty. Most questions that people would ask of a CS degree holder are probably specific technical ones, with fairly well-defined answers. But with economics, everybody wants answers to the sweeping, big-picture questions that are very hard to answer definitively (people who say, "we just don't know the answer, and here's why" tend not to be terribly popular in the media.) People are also, I feel, not well-informed about the basics of economics, so that they can take a particular jargon-y or specific statement by an economist out of context and totally misinterpret it. (Imagine: "These data are organized in a tree." "Hah, computer scientists think my laptop is powered by tiny forests!" Yet this is what happens when economists talk about "value" or "cost", or things of that nature.) Of course this phenomenon does happen in other fields too - think of how often there's an article where "science says x!", when in reality it's just one paper with a tentative conclusion. It just seems particularly common for people to misunderstand economics.