4 ms·

> Economists are known for constructing theories that sound plausible to the typical person, but which are subtly geared to concentrate wealth at the top. I've

> Economists are known for constructing theories that sound plausible to the typical person, but which are subtly geared to concentrate wealth at the top. I've never heard anyone ever say that they knew economists for this. It seems likely you just made this up. > Economists core moral value is maximum efficiency Citation needed. I've never met or seen a single encomist who believes that efficiency is a moral imperative. > We need a new version of antitrust that doesn't just target percentage power, but absolute as well. Who is "we" and what empirical evidence suggests that we "need" this?

talldayo 2y ago
> Citation needed. I've never met or seen a single encomist who believes that efficiency is a moral imperative. I bet you haven't. It's like asking a programmer if designing weapons is their primary imperative - nearly everyone will say no. But when you examine the number of people that make contributions that could be weaponized or is abused as a weapon by their superiors, the statistics tell a different story. Nobody wants to say they contribute to a surveillance state, but you also can't really deny that technology is being promoted so it can reach that stage. Economists don't want you to know what sausage it is they're making. But the most successful and influential ones are certainly being used as adversaries to pro-consumer economic policy because that's why these people are paid in the first place. > Who is "we" and what empirical evidence suggests that we "need" this? "we" are people that import American software products, and the evidence is the crumbling and neglected shit-heap of smartphone regulation. It is obviating serious privacy laws, creating stagnant markets that do not benefit users, and forcing developers to cover first-party costs when it should be platform-holders and customers picking up the bill.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the most successful and influential ones are certainly being used as adversaries to pro-consumer economic policy because that's why these people are paid in the first place What do you think the economists at the FTC are doing?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    They sure aren't playing defense against nobody.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > sure aren't playing defense against nobody What?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        I believe "pro-consumer economic policy" would be the FTC and "the most successful and influential [economists]" would be playing adversary to the FTC, hence "they [the FTC] sure aren't play defense against nobody" to support their previous assertion.
        azinman2 2y ago
        Except what economists are against the FTC? Usually it’s companies suing them, or vice versa. Maybe like 1 guy at the Heritage Foundation or something?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > what economists are against the FTC? Very few. Non-competitive markets are a well known market failure [1] and a condition that an unchecked political economy tends towards. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Unless I'm mistaken, this comment was posted in the comment section for an article talking about an economist who testified in court in opposition to the DoJ in a case that was brought by the FTC.
    - azinman2 2y ago
      So they are playing defense for everybody?
- cbsmith 2y ago
  > I bet you haven't. It's like asking a programmer if designing weapons is their primary imperative - nearly everyone will say no. But when you examine the number of people that make contributions that could be weaponized or is abused as a weapon by their superiors, the statistics tell a different story. Just because one's work can be used as a weapon doesn't mean that designing weapons is one's primary imperative. "primary imperative" isn't about outcomes, it's about objectives. I'm pretty sure the primary imperative of the Wright Brothers was to get something into the air, not to design a weapon.
- azinman2 2y ago
  You said programmers are unaware of contributing to weapons, suggesting a parallel to economists, and then say that economists don’t want to to know that they’re doing something bad. If you’re unaware how could you have something to hide? The most influential economists are paid to.. make rich people richer? Who? Which? Economists are largely academics, which are paid by universities to teach and research without editorial control. If you have damning evidence of explicit corruption, please cite that versus some generality. It would also be good to know (with sources) the prevalence versus a one off. If you look at NBER’s latest research (https://www.nber.org https://www.nber.org), which is a top economist think tank / affiliated with Harvard, I’m not seeing anything that (to me) supports anything you’re saying. I have dated a powerful economist and hung around in those circles, and never have I heard anything remotely like what you’re describing. But it is true that I’m not an economist myself nor am deeply embedded to have certainty.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > The most influential economists are paid to.. make rich people richer? In a trial like this, a "star witness" was almost certainly paid for their testimony. Not to suggest that their opinions were altered by the payment but that businesses generally need an incentive for someone like this to go on the stand. It's not an accident that this person said a bunch of things which were positive for Google, because they would have specifically looked for someone who would say such things.
    - azinman2 2y ago
      Finding someone who will back a specific claim in a given lawsuit is hardly suggestive of an entire field of social scientists bent on making rich people richer.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        > hardly suggestive of an entire field This is shifting the goalposts. The parent commenter is talking about the "most influential" and it's likely that those who want to be influential will make public appearances and statements. Those are the sort in a field who are paid by large companies to publicly agree with them.
marcosdumay 2y ago
A huge number of people has a mental model of "economist" that is completely disconnected from reality. I imagine that's caused by bad news-reporting, but I don't actually have evidence of this.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I would hazard that 99.9% of people have never read or engaged with anything written by an actual economist. However, the vast majority of people have heard economic ideas as they are presented by politicians, pundits, and drunks.

talldayo 2y ago

> Citation needed. I've never met or seen a single encomist who believes that efficiency is a moral imperative. I bet you haven't. It's like asking a programmer if designing weapons is their primary imperative - nearly everyone will say no. But when you examine the number of people that make contributions that could be weaponized or is abused as a weapon by their superiors, the statistics tell a different story. Nobody wants to say they contribute to a surveillance state, but you also can't really deny that technology is being promoted so it can reach that stage. Economists don't want you to know what sausage it is they're making. But the most successful and influential ones are certainly being used as adversaries to pro-consumer economic policy because that's why these people are paid in the first place. > Who is "we" and what empirical evidence suggests that we "need" this? "we" are people that import American software products, and the evidence is the crumbling and neglected shit-heap of smartphone regulation. It is obviating serious privacy laws, creating stagnant markets that do not benefit users, and forcing developers to cover first-party costs when it should be platform-holders and customers picking up the bill.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the most successful and influential ones are certainly being used as adversaries to pro-consumer economic policy because that's why these people are paid in the first place What do you think the economists at the FTC are doing?
- talldayo 2y ago
  They sure aren't playing defense against nobody.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > sure aren't playing defense against nobody What?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      I believe "pro-consumer economic policy" would be the FTC and "the most successful and influential [economists]" would be playing adversary to the FTC, hence "they [the FTC] sure aren't play defense against nobody" to support their previous assertion.
      - azinman2 2y ago
        Except what economists are against the FTC? Usually it’s companies suing them, or vice versa. Maybe like 1 guy at the Heritage Foundation or something?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > what economists are against the FTC? Very few. Non-competitive markets are a well known market failure [1] and a condition that an unchecked political economy tends towards. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Unless I'm mistaken, this comment was posted in the comment section for an article talking about an economist who testified in court in opposition to the DoJ in a case that was brought by the FTC.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    So they are playing defense for everybody?
cbsmith 2y ago
> I bet you haven't. It's like asking a programmer if designing weapons is their primary imperative - nearly everyone will say no. But when you examine the number of people that make contributions that could be weaponized or is abused as a weapon by their superiors, the statistics tell a different story. Just because one's work can be used as a weapon doesn't mean that designing weapons is one's primary imperative. "primary imperative" isn't about outcomes, it's about objectives. I'm pretty sure the primary imperative of the Wright Brothers was to get something into the air, not to design a weapon.
azinman2 2y ago
You said programmers are unaware of contributing to weapons, suggesting a parallel to economists, and then say that economists don’t want to to know that they’re doing something bad. If you’re unaware how could you have something to hide? The most influential economists are paid to.. make rich people richer? Who? Which? Economists are largely academics, which are paid by universities to teach and research without editorial control. If you have damning evidence of explicit corruption, please cite that versus some generality. It would also be good to know (with sources) the prevalence versus a one off. If you look at NBER’s latest research (https://www.nber.org https://www.nber.org), which is a top economist think tank / affiliated with Harvard, I’m not seeing anything that (to me) supports anything you’re saying. I have dated a powerful economist and hung around in those circles, and never have I heard anything remotely like what you’re describing. But it is true that I’m not an economist myself nor am deeply embedded to have certainty.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > The most influential economists are paid to.. make rich people richer? In a trial like this, a "star witness" was almost certainly paid for their testimony. Not to suggest that their opinions were altered by the payment but that businesses generally need an incentive for someone like this to go on the stand. It's not an accident that this person said a bunch of things which were positive for Google, because they would have specifically looked for someone who would say such things.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    Finding someone who will back a specific claim in a given lawsuit is hardly suggestive of an entire field of social scientists bent on making rich people richer.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > hardly suggestive of an entire field This is shifting the goalposts. The parent commenter is talking about the "most influential" and it's likely that those who want to be influential will make public appearances and statements. Those are the sort in a field who are paid by large companies to publicly agree with them.

marcosdumay 2y ago

A huge number of people has a mental model of "economist" that is completely disconnected from reality. I imagine that's caused by bad news-reporting, but I don't actually have evidence of this.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I would hazard that 99.9% of people have never read or engaged with anything written by an actual economist. However, the vast majority of people have heard economic ideas as they are presented by politicians, pundits, and drunks.