4 ms·

>Ackerman’s point of view that economists were infallible and their suggestions should be adopted uncritically by voters was called into question by the fact th

>Ackerman’s point of view that economists were infallible and their suggestions should be adopted uncritically by voters was called into question by the fact that the group neglected to book the most popular speakers, such as Thomas Piketty, into sufficiently large rooms and, though they were videotaping the talks, did not have any provision to show the videos in real-time on screens in lobbies or other rooms. If the nation’s top economists can’t estimate demand for talks by economists can we trust them to tell us what to do about global warming? I think this touches on the core elephant in the room with modern (especially American) economics. There is often a lot more money and career advancement to be made as an economist if you are productively wrong - making policy proscriptions that serve an agenda, than if you are right. Of course it does none of them any good to admit that. State this aloud and expect to be ostracized at a conference like this. It would be helpful to look at economists themselves as rational agents who produce an output (political opinions with the veneer of objectivity) and who respond to incentives. Bearing in mind that the employment/income options for most economists are: * Academic departments, funded via student debt. * Think tanks - nearly all funded by large corporations and high net worth individuals. * Finance - large banks, hedge funds, etc. Large corporations usually have different agendas but will seek to form cohesive blocs to increase their power, often under the umbrella of a lobby group. Sometimes they will fight, though. Examples: * Exxon cares about discrediting climate change. * Power companies want solar panels dead yesterday. * Comcast wants net neutrality dead. * Google and Netflix want net neutrality alive. * Google's founders want something done about climate change (as do many notable high net worth individuals from a non-fossil fuel background). * Private colleges want the federal government to keep increasing loans to students. * Corporations that employ a lot of people and are under threat from unionization would like to see workers' bargaining power curtailed (debt is good at that). * Everybody in high finance likes debt (obviously). Especially if it is administered by them, but even if it is not, because even if it isn't, one day it could be privatized and produce profits.

dllthomas 12y ago
So, can we change the incentives?
- danieltillett 12y ago
  The golden rule is hard to change - he with the gold makes the rules.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Of course, but that's easier said than done.
bachmeier 12y ago
"There is often a lot more money and career advancement to be made as an economist if you are productively wrong - making policy proscriptions that serve an agenda, than if you are right." I was unaware of that. I guess the last 12+ years that I've been an academic economist, I've been doing it wrong. Could you put me in touch with someone that will pay me to serve their agenda?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  How is your research funded? What strings are attached to the money? Incidentally, a chunk of your department's money appears to be sourced via this corporation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill thanks to an apparently friendly relationship with one of their VPs. I suggest that if you approach the subject of the economics of human trafficking, you do so with care for the sake of your career.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  I hope you have been following the path of integrity and truth, but there is a perception that the economists that get the most attention are those that are best able to come up with a justification for the the rich being rich and that the status quo should be maintained.
  - swatow 12y ago
    how and why is Economics different from other academics disciplines in that respect? and why is so much focus given to this one kind of bias. What about the potential for self-perpetuating bias that arises from the self-governing nature of academia? Whatever the current bias is, it gets reinforced and strengthened by academics selecting like minded people to become their peers (through tenure) publishing like minded articles in their journals, and granting funding to like minded researchers
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      The difference with economics is that it has for better-or-worse some influence over society's discussions about income distribution. I used to be a biology academic and I can tell you nobody cared what any of my collegues thought in this area :)
swatow 12y ago
Your post contains two unfair criticisms. The article was making a cheap shot at economists. Clearly economists don't claim to be experts at predicting "demand" in every possible markets, only at understanding the general principles. Your own criticism is unfair because you think finding any link, no matter tenuous, between a source of funding and some kind of bias, is sufficient to show Economists (but not their critics) are biased. The most important, and worst, example is * Academic departments, funded via student debt. First, academic departments are not funded solely by corporate debt. Government research grants are a major source of funding. Second, it's unfair to call it "student debt" since students are getting something of value, which they happen to pay for using borrowed money. Finally, student debt is a very minor issue in the scheme of things, and would not bias economists on other issues. Finally, how helpful is it to apply your lens of "rational incentives" to your own side of politics? Here is how I see it from my side: There is no incentive to support mainstream economics outside of academia, because economics is subtle, gives no easy answers, and often identifies no bad guys. It gives clear policy advice in some cases (e.g. free trade follows pretty directly from economic theory) but this advice is often unpopular with special interests. So the one poster who supports economic theory will always find themselves up against more passionate and committed arguers. Economics states that in many ways the world is as good as it can be, and there is no quick fix to improve the lot of ordinary people (apart from, perhaps, more and better redistribution of wealth, but this has limits). This is bad news, hence the term "dismal science". People like quick fixes, so they believe in anyone but mainstream economists. Ever notice that economists get the blame when the economy does badly, but not the credit when it does well?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Your post contains two unfair criticisms. The article was making a cheap shot at economists. Clearly economists don't claim to be experts at predicting "demand" in every possible markets, only at understanding the general principles. Let's just say that I wasn't at all surprised that it was that one economist in particular - Piketty - who got stuck in the small room. Economists are a cliquey bunch at the best of times and the cool kids do not like Piketty. >Your own criticism is unfair because you think finding any link, no matter tenuous, between a source of funding and some kind of bias, is sufficient to show Economists (but not their critics) are biased. So you think economists are correct that everybody responds to incentives.... but economists don't? >First, academic departments are not funded solely by corporate debt. You mean student debt. No, they are not solely, but it is a huge proportion of university funding. Students take out loans. Every university has a keen interest in the terms and availability of those loans because it affects how much their primary customers can pay. This is what led to 20% year on year inflation in college prices. > Second, it's unfair to call it "student debt" since students are getting something of value facepalm > Finally, student debt is a very minor issue in the scheme of things You are really out of touch. There's over a trillion dollars of student debt outstanding in the US alone. >Finally, how helpful is it to apply your lens of "rational incentives" to your own side of politics I think it makes sense to look at incentives from every side. >There is no incentive to support mainstream economics outside of academia, because economics is subtle, gives no easy answers, and often identifies no bad guys. As mentioned above, it gives convenient policy proscriptions, therefore it is useful. The presence or lack of 'enemies' is irrelevant. >It gives clear policy advice in some cases (e.g. free trade follows pretty directly from economic theory) but this advice is often unpopular with special interests. Special interests such as half of the manufacturing industry in the US which was driven into bankruptcy, and the people employed by it who lost their jobs, and the cities such as Detroit that were destroyed by it? Are the working classes a special interest now? "Free trade uber alles" is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. It is productively wrong - it benefits corporate profits over the citizens of the country. Among the many things it failed to predict were China's meteoric rise and the destruction of the fabric of entire cities in the US.
mjklin 12y ago
The field for economists is much broader than you suggest: "Today there is hardly a government, international agency, or large commercial bank that does not have its own staff of economists. Many of the world's economists devote their time to teaching economics in colleges and universities around the world, but most work in various research or advisory capacities, either for themselves (in economics consulting firms), in industry, or in government. Still others are employed in accounting, commerce, marketing, and business administration; although they are trained as economists, their occupational expertise falls within other fields. Indeed, this can be considered "the age of economists," and the demand for their services seems insatiable. Supply responds to that demand, and in the United States alone some 400 institutions of higher learning grant about 900 new Ph.D.'s in economics each year." -- Encyclopedia Britannica, "Economics"

dllthomas 12y ago

So, can we change the incentives?

danieltillett 12y ago
The golden rule is hard to change - he with the gold makes the rules.
crdoconnor 12y ago
Of course, but that's easier said than done.

bachmeier 12y ago

"There is often a lot more money and career advancement to be made as an economist if you are productively wrong - making policy proscriptions that serve an agenda, than if you are right." I was unaware of that. I guess the last 12+ years that I've been an academic economist, I've been doing it wrong. Could you put me in touch with someone that will pay me to serve their agenda?

crdoconnor 12y ago
How is your research funded? What strings are attached to the money? Incidentally, a chunk of your department's money appears to be sourced via this corporation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargill thanks to an apparently friendly relationship with one of their VPs. I suggest that if you approach the subject of the economics of human trafficking, you do so with care for the sake of your career.
danieltillett 12y ago
I hope you have been following the path of integrity and truth, but there is a perception that the economists that get the most attention are those that are best able to come up with a justification for the the rich being rich and that the status quo should be maintained.
- swatow 12y ago
  how and why is Economics different from other academics disciplines in that respect? and why is so much focus given to this one kind of bias. What about the potential for self-perpetuating bias that arises from the self-governing nature of academia? Whatever the current bias is, it gets reinforced and strengthened by academics selecting like minded people to become their peers (through tenure) publishing like minded articles in their journals, and granting funding to like minded researchers
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    The difference with economics is that it has for better-or-worse some influence over society's discussions about income distribution. I used to be a biology academic and I can tell you nobody cared what any of my collegues thought in this area :)

swatow 12y ago

Your post contains two unfair criticisms. The article was making a cheap shot at economists. Clearly economists don't claim to be experts at predicting "demand" in every possible markets, only at understanding the general principles. Your own criticism is unfair because you think finding any link, no matter tenuous, between a source of funding and some kind of bias, is sufficient to show Economists (but not their critics) are biased. The most important, and worst, example is * Academic departments, funded via student debt. First, academic departments are not funded solely by corporate debt. Government research grants are a major source of funding. Second, it's unfair to call it "student debt" since students are getting something of value, which they happen to pay for using borrowed money. Finally, student debt is a very minor issue in the scheme of things, and would not bias economists on other issues. Finally, how helpful is it to apply your lens of "rational incentives" to your own side of politics? Here is how I see it from my side: There is no incentive to support mainstream economics outside of academia, because economics is subtle, gives no easy answers, and often identifies no bad guys. It gives clear policy advice in some cases (e.g. free trade follows pretty directly from economic theory) but this advice is often unpopular with special interests. So the one poster who supports economic theory will always find themselves up against more passionate and committed arguers. Economics states that in many ways the world is as good as it can be, and there is no quick fix to improve the lot of ordinary people (apart from, perhaps, more and better redistribution of wealth, but this has limits). This is bad news, hence the term "dismal science". People like quick fixes, so they believe in anyone but mainstream economists. Ever notice that economists get the blame when the economy does badly, but not the credit when it does well?

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Your post contains two unfair criticisms. The article was making a cheap shot at economists. Clearly economists don't claim to be experts at predicting "demand" in every possible markets, only at understanding the general principles. Let's just say that I wasn't at all surprised that it was that one economist in particular - Piketty - who got stuck in the small room. Economists are a cliquey bunch at the best of times and the cool kids do not like Piketty. >Your own criticism is unfair because you think finding any link, no matter tenuous, between a source of funding and some kind of bias, is sufficient to show Economists (but not their critics) are biased. So you think economists are correct that everybody responds to incentives.... but economists don't? >First, academic departments are not funded solely by corporate debt. You mean student debt. No, they are not solely, but it is a huge proportion of university funding. Students take out loans. Every university has a keen interest in the terms and availability of those loans because it affects how much their primary customers can pay. This is what led to 20% year on year inflation in college prices. > Second, it's unfair to call it "student debt" since students are getting something of value facepalm > Finally, student debt is a very minor issue in the scheme of things You are really out of touch. There's over a trillion dollars of student debt outstanding in the US alone. >Finally, how helpful is it to apply your lens of "rational incentives" to your own side of politics I think it makes sense to look at incentives from every side. >There is no incentive to support mainstream economics outside of academia, because economics is subtle, gives no easy answers, and often identifies no bad guys. As mentioned above, it gives convenient policy proscriptions, therefore it is useful. The presence or lack of 'enemies' is irrelevant. >It gives clear policy advice in some cases (e.g. free trade follows pretty directly from economic theory) but this advice is often unpopular with special interests. Special interests such as half of the manufacturing industry in the US which was driven into bankruptcy, and the people employed by it who lost their jobs, and the cities such as Detroit that were destroyed by it? Are the working classes a special interest now? "Free trade uber alles" is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. It is productively wrong - it benefits corporate profits over the citizens of the country. Among the many things it failed to predict were China's meteoric rise and the destruction of the fabric of entire cities in the US.

mjklin 12y ago

The field for economists is much broader than you suggest: "Today there is hardly a government, international agency, or large commercial bank that does not have its own staff of economists. Many of the world's economists devote their time to teaching economics in colleges and universities around the world, but most work in various research or advisory capacities, either for themselves (in economics consulting firms), in industry, or in government. Still others are employed in accounting, commerce, marketing, and business administration; although they are trained as economists, their occupational expertise falls within other fields. Indeed, this can be considered "the age of economists," and the demand for their services seems insatiable. Supply responds to that demand, and in the United States alone some 400 institutions of higher learning grant about 900 new Ph.D.'s in economics each year." -- Encyclopedia Britannica, "Economics"