8 ms·

Chang seems to be conflating two visions of economics: one vision of economics that says how things are, and one vision that says how things should be. There's

• nerdponx 8y ago
  Chang seems to be conflating two visions of economics: one vision of economics that says how things are, and one vision that says how things should be. This unfortunately is what a lot of people learn in economics courses and pop economics books.
• neilwilson 8y ago
  We don't have consensus for cause and effect at all. What we have is a well established groupthink trying desperately to maintain its view and its power. The 2008 crash threw all of it up in the air. I'd recommend reading debunking economics to see the heterodox viewpoint. Essentially there is no value free economics. That a marketing pitch for a set of values. There is only political economy.
  • astine 8y ago
    Economics is an evolving field of study like any other. There are many different schools of thought even within the 'mainstream' position. Using disagreements and changes within the field as an argument that the entire field is flawed is what climate change deniers use when they want to dismiss evidence of climate change. There is room for disagreement on policy without dismissal of the entire field. Besides, which heterodox viewpoint are you going to argue for? The Marxist? Austrian? Both of these are more clearly 'marketing pitches for a set values' than 'mainstream' economics. If an excessive emphasis on the free market is a pet-peeve of yours then you certainly don't want the latter.
    • f00_ 8y ago
      it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were. by the arguments of market fundamentalists/etc you'd think they think economics is a deductive science part of his whole thing is that economics isn't something too complicated for the average person to understand. too much mathiness and touted as an absolute certain science >The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.
      • j88439h84 8y ago
        > it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were Can you explain the difference between an "exact science" and the other thing?
• imbokodo 8y ago
  > one is economic theory and one is political theory It is an absurd notion that there are two manners of discussing how the pie should be divided up - one objective, scientific, fair-minded etc., and one "political". Obviously it is all political. As it was originally called - political economy. The term economics was promoted by Alfred Marshall, one of the most political of those focused on the economy.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • astine 8y ago
    "It is an absurd notion that there are two manners of discussing how the pie should be divided up" There is absolutely a difference between normative and positive statements about the world. Arguing whether raising taxes will lower middle class wages is a different question from whether one should raise taxes.One is a question of facts and the other is a questions of values. This distinction holds no matter what field you are discussing; it's just the field of economics where people seem to insist on blurring the two.
    • emodendroket 8y ago
      I think it is worth pointing out that often we don't actually know the answer, or are getting results interpreted through politically motivated lenses, and so even seemingly descriptive statements about the economy are often secretly normative ones.
    • f00_ 8y ago
      I don't think there is such a clear distinction between fact and values ala Hume’s conception of a "matter of fact" or Kant’s distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments. economics isn't a deductive science. i prefer Keynes' irreducable uncertainty as a principle of policy. we can't predict the future, we don't how policy is going to act out. the future won't look like the past. the chicago school's knightian uncertainty is the supply side of the same coin there are flaws in the logical positive approach, see pragmatists like john dewey, hilary putnam, or richard rorty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLJfEVu3kbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLJfEVu3kbY
• emodendroket 8y ago
  Doesn't it seem like a problem that all your sources for broad consensus are from the same outfit? I'm also not sure how closely you read the review if you don't think Chang talks about behavioral economics: "Those nine schools are Austrian, Behaviourist, Classical, Developmentalist, Institutionalist, Keynesian, Marxist, Neoclassical and Schumpeterian." One also wonders how likely it is that Ha-Joon Chang, who has a pretty solid list of mainstream credentials (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang), is really as confused about the claims of mainstream economics as you seem to imply.
  • koube 8y ago
    No, it doesn't seem like a problem, because I was only pointing out that consensus exists, which is an obvious statement. You can google any of these and confirm that economists agree on effectiveness of tariffs, but none of the other sources I've seen are as mainstream or as accessible as IGM. He doesn't talk about behavioral economics, he talks about a behaviourist school of thought, which I think is a concept only he believes in. That's like describing plant biology as a plantist school of thought separate from the animist school of thought. As I've already shown, behavioral economics as a general concept has nearly universal buy-in from economists, so it makes no sense to describe it as a school of thought. This also marks him as solidly heterodox if he uses language that nobody else uses.
    • f00_ 8y ago
      the consensus is "uncertain" for [2], some of the questions don't make sense or are really vague. Behavioral economics is all about critique of the rational actor in rational expectations theory, I think that fits in with critique of neoclassical theory as too mathematized and unrealistic the categorization is arbitary, even if you think it's heterodox. he's communicating to a general audience have you read chang's kicking away the ladder? much more specialized if that's you're thing, with historical data >In this provocative study, Ha-Joon Chang examines the great pressure on developing countries from the developed world to adopt certain 'good policies' and 'good institutions', seen today as necessary for economic development. His conclusions are compelling and disturbing: that developed countries are attempting to 'kick away the ladder' with which they have climbed to the top, thereby preventing developing countries from adopting policies and institutions that they themselves have used.
• sjg007 8y ago
  Economics is the study of what governments should do. Like all opinions, some are more true than others.
  • pg_bot 8y ago
    Economics is the study of how individuals, firms, and society make decisions to allocate limited resources to many competing wants.