3 ms·

Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. That's a bit like saying scientists are biased i

Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
exolymph 8y ago
Not every value that people hold is economically reducible.
- kristianc 8y ago
  In the FT's case, it is. The FT doesn't 'know a lot', it largely reflects the mainstream consensus of the economics literature and think tanks - which are broadly pro market with regulation, in line with much of the economics profession. The FT has come out and said that if most of the economics literature was in favour of Brexit, they would have been too, but it wasn't, so they weren't. There was a lot of concern with Nikkei's investment in the FT that that would no longer be the case and that it would kowtow to it's corporate owners - if proved not to be the case.
pytester 8y ago
>Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. >That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence. The economics profession is biased in favour of that because the think tank money, sourced from corporate wealth, wants that. It's a pretty irrational bias which has led to, among other things, the mainstream of the profession being completely blindsided by the financial crisis (famously called out by the normally apolitical Queen) as well as the meteoric rise of China via highly managed trade (an anti free market policy treated by most economists in the 90s/early 00s as largely self defeating).
chrisseaton 8y ago
Wow that’s nasty - equating me to a climate change denier because I said I thought the FT had a bias in one economic direction.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

exolymph 8y ago

Not every value that people hold is economically reducible.

kristianc 8y ago
In the FT's case, it is. The FT doesn't 'know a lot', it largely reflects the mainstream consensus of the economics literature and think tanks - which are broadly pro market with regulation, in line with much of the economics profession. The FT has come out and said that if most of the economics literature was in favour of Brexit, they would have been too, but it wasn't, so they weren't. There was a lot of concern with Nikkei's investment in the FT that that would no longer be the case and that it would kowtow to it's corporate owners - if proved not to be the case.

pytester 8y ago

>Most of the economics profession is biased in favour of some regulated form of free markets and globalization. >That's a bit like saying scientists are biased in favour of anthropic climate change: it's a rational bias based on 200 years of evidence. The economics profession is biased in favour of that because the think tank money, sourced from corporate wealth, wants that. It's a pretty irrational bias which has led to, among other things, the mainstream of the profession being completely blindsided by the financial crisis (famously called out by the normally apolitical Queen) as well as the meteoric rise of China via highly managed trade (an anti free market policy treated by most economists in the 90s/early 00s as largely self defeating).

chrisseaton 8y ago

Wow that’s nasty - equating me to a climate change denier because I said I thought the FT had a bias in one economic direction.