5 ms·

Sometimes it feels like economists come up with these ideas in an ivory tower, detached from reality. Any kind of price control seems to make economists very up

Sometimes it feels like economists come up with these ideas in an ivory tower, detached from reality. Any kind of price control seems to make economists very upset, rent control being another example. Reality is that there are so many other factors that it’s probably better to have some sort of price control as a form of regulation, instead of only focusing on supply/demand levers. I’m not an economist so I’m happy to be proven wrong, but the stance of “x,y and z policies need to be implemented so supply/demand is changed to mitigate these issues”, but the reality is that politicians and the business landscape doesn’t incentivize such changes. For example, colleges aren’t incentivized to keep the cost low, housing construction isn’t incentivized because NIMBYs control what can be built where, etc. So when someone says “well the economists don’t agree on that”, it really rubs me the wrong way.

gottorf 3y ago
> Any kind of price control seems to make economists very upset, rent control being another example. They're probably upset the same way that climate scientists get upset when people dispute climate change; that is, it's a widely-studied phenomenon by economists of all political persuasions with lots of evidence to back it up. A price ceiling causes a shortage, like cars lining up at gas stations during the 70s oil crisis or the 10+ years of wait time in Stockholm apartments. A price floor causes a surplus, like unemployed workers at the minimum wage.
- AngryData 3y ago
  That is not a good comparison. Scientists that disagree with climate change are like a couple percent at max. Meanwhile nearly every economic topic, including price controls, would have double digits of economists disagreeing with it. Economics is not a hard science where you can take anything in absolutes.
  - somewhat_drunk 3y ago
    Disagree. Climate science and economics are quite similar in this context, in that both an economy and a global environment are so massive and massively complex that neither can be isolated and studied in a controlled environment. In such cases, when there does exist a consensus, it's probably correct.
leshow 3y ago
I'd wager econlib is cherry picking https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-library-of-economics-and-liberty-econlib/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-library-of-economics-and-... Mainstream economists have thought very different things at different times. The current mainstream orthodoxy is largely free market fundamentalists that took over in the 80's. There are heterodox economists that disagree with this view. Practically, there are also many examples of price and rent controls and de-commodification "working" throughout modern history and currently on other countries.
- somewhat_drunk 3y ago
  I'd wager they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls
  - leshow 3y ago
    If you actually read the rest of my comment, I acknowledge mainstream (that is to say, neoclassical) economists don't like price controls, which is almost exactly what the wiki page says.
    - somewhat_drunk 3y ago
      I did read your comment, and I blithely responded with another source supporting my original claim. In hindsight though, you're right: I should have simply picked apart your original argument instead of providing another source, as your argument is self-contradictory. You argued that econlib cherry-picked economists to generate a biased result, which you then followed up by acknowledging that "mainstream" economists do not support price controls, which is exactly what the survey showed. There is, in fact, a broad consensus among economists that price controls are generally counterproductive. The econlib survey showed it, the wikipedia links support that, and you apparently agree. So... thanks?
      - leshow 3y ago
        I think it goes without saying that if you don't include any voices of dissent, you get a remarkably consistent answer. That is still a bias.
somewhat_drunk 3y ago
If you as an armchair expert disagree with a broad consensus of actual experts - i.e. people who study something as a lifetime pursuit, your first thought should be that your knowledge is lacking, not that they are wrong. And if you find yourself seriously believing that they are wrong without first understanding how they are wrong, then that should be a strong indicator that your thinking is clouded by bias.

gottorf 3y ago

> Any kind of price control seems to make economists very upset, rent control being another example. They're probably upset the same way that climate scientists get upset when people dispute climate change; that is, it's a widely-studied phenomenon by economists of all political persuasions with lots of evidence to back it up. A price ceiling causes a shortage, like cars lining up at gas stations during the 70s oil crisis or the 10+ years of wait time in Stockholm apartments. A price floor causes a surplus, like unemployed workers at the minimum wage.

AngryData 3y ago
That is not a good comparison. Scientists that disagree with climate change are like a couple percent at max. Meanwhile nearly every economic topic, including price controls, would have double digits of economists disagreeing with it. Economics is not a hard science where you can take anything in absolutes.
- somewhat_drunk 3y ago
  Disagree. Climate science and economics are quite similar in this context, in that both an economy and a global environment are so massive and massively complex that neither can be isolated and studied in a controlled environment. In such cases, when there does exist a consensus, it's probably correct.

leshow 3y ago

I'd wager econlib is cherry picking https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-library-of-economics-and-liberty-econlib/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-library-of-economics-and-... Mainstream economists have thought very different things at different times. The current mainstream orthodoxy is largely free market fundamentalists that took over in the 80's. There are heterodox economists that disagree with this view. Practically, there are also many examples of price and rent controls and de-commodification "working" throughout modern history and currently on other countries.

somewhat_drunk 3y ago
I'd wager they aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls
- leshow 3y ago
  If you actually read the rest of my comment, I acknowledge mainstream (that is to say, neoclassical) economists don't like price controls, which is almost exactly what the wiki page says.
  - somewhat_drunk 3y ago
    I did read your comment, and I blithely responded with another source supporting my original claim. In hindsight though, you're right: I should have simply picked apart your original argument instead of providing another source, as your argument is self-contradictory. You argued that econlib cherry-picked economists to generate a biased result, which you then followed up by acknowledging that "mainstream" economists do not support price controls, which is exactly what the survey showed. There is, in fact, a broad consensus among economists that price controls are generally counterproductive. The econlib survey showed it, the wikipedia links support that, and you apparently agree. So... thanks?
    - leshow 3y ago
      I think it goes without saying that if you don't include any voices of dissent, you get a remarkably consistent answer. That is still a bias.

somewhat_drunk 3y ago

If you as an armchair expert disagree with a broad consensus of actual experts - i.e. people who study something as a lifetime pursuit, your first thought should be that your knowledge is lacking, not that they are wrong. And if you find yourself seriously believing that they are wrong without first understanding how they are wrong, then that should be a strong indicator that your thinking is clouded by bias.