4 ms·
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 "deman
by 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.