tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post2532154194208701716..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Why do people think economists are charlatans?Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69055644616673434912013-01-27T20:18:06.420-05:002013-01-27T20:18:06.420-05:00Yes, Aristotle was more empirically minded than Pl...Yes, Aristotle was more empirically minded than Plato, but it was Aristotle's lasting influence, via the scholastics and others, which had, so to speak, to be overcome in order for modern science to really blossom. And in particular his notions of 'cause', which were objects of deductive reasoning. So, both his long-held academic authority and his (still) insufficient regard for or grasp of experiment make him a good analogue here. (In other words, the implied contrast is with modern science, not Plato.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-77661493181619794602013-01-21T07:42:08.649-05:002013-01-21T07:42:08.649-05:00The textbook free trade model is simplistic. Comp...The textbook free trade model is simplistic. Comparative advantage is not the typical situation. Unrestrained trade is labor rate arbitrager. Add in the fact that foreign governments are happy to run permanent trade surpluses to keep their citizens employed and you end up with lost US jobs and the hollowing out of the middle class.<br /><br />Is it any wonder that people have so little respect for economists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-578609924728594252013-01-20T15:43:47.631-05:002013-01-20T15:43:47.631-05:00the problem in a nutshell
you assert as true somet...the problem in a nutshell<br />you assert as true something that other people find incorrect.<br />I mean, it is not as if a lot of astronomers are arguing about the hubble constant...(well, actually, untill the 90s, there was a big argument, Ho was 70 or 35 Km s-1 parsec-1) <br /><br />but, they settled it thu this stuff called data...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-17682009725073382942013-01-17T13:58:47.357-05:002013-01-17T13:58:47.357-05:00You are a trained scientists, you mean, like the m...You are a trained scientists, you mean, like the members of the club of Rome? Maybe you have heard about this bet between one of them and an economist?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager<br /><br />And, by the way, the first person to make a gloomy prediction about growth was Thomas Malthus, an economist! But Malthus was proven wrong by the explosion of innovation right before the industrial evolution.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21788959480487996482013-01-17T13:47:53.441-05:002013-01-17T13:47:53.441-05:00"But I don't think I've heard many ec..."But I don't think I've heard many economists admit that"<br /><br />Can you provide reference? This admission is standard in pretty much every principles textbooks, including ones written by the big shots that Nathanael characterizes as charlatans. What do you have in mind?CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-78454809490502188872013-01-17T13:45:10.541-05:002013-01-17T13:45:10.541-05:00"Mercantilism works, under most circumstances..."Mercantilism works, under most circumstances. (Krugman is actually smart enough to recognize this.)"<br /><br />Can you provide some sources to both claims (regarding mercantilism and Krugman's position)? CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59067138021015885992013-01-14T19:36:29.026-05:002013-01-14T19:36:29.026-05:00I thought someone would have made this point by no...I thought someone would have made this point by now, but I guess everyone's been preoccupied with angry finger-pointing and fist-shaking.<br /><br />I just wanted to point out that I think Aristotle was the empiricist and taxonomer, and Plato was the abstract conceptual deductivist.Michael Harrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48862704493434663892013-01-14T17:17:07.149-05:002013-01-14T17:17:07.149-05:00Agree w/ Nathanael. For starters, you have the obv...Agree w/ Nathanael. For starters, you have the obvious charlatans like Fama, Cochrane, Mulligan, Hassett, etc - people who will use accounting identities to argue against ARRA and then turn around and make the exact opposite argument about the fiscal cliff.<br /><br />Then you have the people who are so dedicated to their theories that they can't see the evidence to the contrary. This isn't unique to economics; scientists in all disciplines have a tendency to hang on to their ideas for too long. But people who are wrong about, say, the relative benefits of flashing yellow left turn arrows versus solid green circles for permissive left turns at traffic lights, have a much smaller impact on people's lives than economists.<br /><br />In the case of free trade, it has become apparent that these policies have made many people in the US worse off, even if the condition of humanity as a whole has been improved. But I don't think I've heard many economists admit that, save Paul Krugman. Ditto for declaring mercantilism dead, despite the obvious success of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, and China.LetsGoLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06107329708370977966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-69533786273581814502013-01-14T12:58:36.739-05:002013-01-14T12:58:36.739-05:00Why are economists always talking about homos? Wha...Why are economists always talking about homos? What do tehy have against teh gays?<br /><br />-Ibod CatoogaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80661065263391576432013-01-13T21:56:09.083-05:002013-01-13T21:56:09.083-05:00It's really interesting to read the comments: ...It's really interesting to read the comments: the overall conclusion is: people believe economists are charlatans because...<br /><br />...most of the the time, most economists ARE charlatans. Particularly the famous ones with fancy credentials.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52602567142034715052013-01-13T21:53:17.896-05:002013-01-13T21:53:17.896-05:00Welfare improving in economics lis when those who ...Welfare improving in economics lis when those who gain from a policy would support it even if they had to compensate those who lose for their loss. But a welfare gain is not simply an increase in income. When I have access to French wine or Swiss cheese my welfare improves even though my income does not rise. The theory of trade that emerges from a taste for variety is what won Krugman the Nobel Prize for. <br /><br />Now, you claim that if people were forced to buy Wisconsing cheddar, Californian wine, and American-made cars welfare would improve, because the gain for those employed in these industries would exceed the loss to consumers. I fail to see why. My family would experience a significant decrease in welfare if I couldn't have bought my Mazda 5 (mini) minivan and were forced to buy a more expensive, larger, lower MPG Grand Caravan, or if instead of buying Greek Feta I was forced to buy Feta made in Wisconsin. The loss to millions of consumers like me would be quite substantial, greater than those who would be employed making goods inferior relative to consumer preferences instead of things that consumers actually want to buy.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68152115574436160252013-01-13T21:35:07.069-05:002013-01-13T21:35:07.069-05:00Nathanael,
Yes I know. Laffer is one economist. Re...Nathanael,<br />Yes I know. Laffer is one economist. Reagan, an actor, found it convenient. Of course, back then tax rates were much higher. George Bush on the other hand called it voodoo economics. In any case, it is not a proposition that any serious economist I know of thinks is valid at current tax rates.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21424963086486456802013-01-13T21:28:34.687-05:002013-01-13T21:28:34.687-05:00Free trade is a "race to the bottom" in ...Free trade is a "race to the bottom" in terms of POLLUTION, and as such I'm fairly sure it will make everyone WORSE off, by creating larger and larger tracts of poisoned land and water needing remediation.<br /><br />We found this out when the environmental "side chapter" to NAFTA was never passed.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12068065060320451222013-01-13T21:26:17.880-05:002013-01-13T21:26:17.880-05:00Lately, "aggregate growth" has meant &qu...Lately, "aggregate growth" has meant "more money and power for 15,000 very rich people" (perhaps combined with "more pollution" and "fewer natural resources left in the ground")<br /><br />Who wants that? All of those have negative societal value. Aggregate growth as defined by typical economists is therefore BAD. It should become obvious why people distrust economists.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-61141894273323291802013-01-13T21:23:55.002-05:002013-01-13T21:23:55.002-05:00Joan Robinson's work is very much worth readin...Joan Robinson's work is very much worth reading. It's not a coincidence that she isn't considered "mainstream" in the anti-intellectual, pro-stupidity econmics profession.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-86936644257976606242013-01-13T21:22:19.198-05:002013-01-13T21:22:19.198-05:00Krugman is not the typical Econ 101, unfortunately...Krugman is not the typical Econ 101, unfortunately. Schools are still teaching out of the reprehensible Mankiw textbooks.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21387862083771412692013-01-13T21:20:15.783-05:002013-01-13T21:20:15.783-05:00Indeed.
Economists routinely act as if mean inco...Indeed. <br /><br />Economists routinely act as if mean income is a proxy for societal welfare, even though several well-established empirical facts tell us that it isn't. This is just jackassery and benefits the 0.1%, but nobody else.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58334016389603050502013-01-13T21:18:56.770-05:002013-01-13T21:18:56.770-05:00CA: on #3, it's referring to Laffer, and he ma...CA: on #3, it's referring to Laffer, and he managed to get the support of the entire Reagan administration. Not a small thing.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52654372072927072192013-01-13T21:17:21.995-05:002013-01-13T21:17:21.995-05:00CA: if you actually do a longitudinal study, and t...CA: if you actually do a longitudinal study, and try to spot increases in the median standard of living, you'll find that economics has had...<br />...no benefits.<br /><br />Close to all the identifiable quality-of-life benefits in empirical studies come from sanitation. Most of the rest are from electricity. There's a little from medicine and from refrigeration. Nothing else even *registers*; any potential benefits are too small to measure.<br /><br />So, has economics helped promote sanitation or electricity? Answer: maybe Marxist economics, since the Soviets and Chinese went on big programs of sanitation and electricity installation. Maybe whatever sort of economics (Keynesian) called for rural electrification and created the Tennessee Valley Authority. <br /><br />But not "mainstream" economics as she is practiced in the US.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79995464809855037752013-01-13T21:00:07.541-05:002013-01-13T21:00:07.541-05:00Airline deregulation has proven itself to be a dis...Airline deregulation has proven itself to be a disaster. Turns out airlines don't work as a private industry, and do work as a public utility. And I know the guy who invented airline deregulation. Seemed like a good idea at the time... wasn't.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72183208908884363882013-01-13T20:57:58.630-05:002013-01-13T20:57:58.630-05:00Astoundingly true. I remember thinking that in Ec...Astoundingly true. I remember thinking that in Econ 101. The only trustworthy economics professors at my college were the "heterodox" ones -- the Marxist, the one obsessed with experimental game theory -- while the "mainstream" ones were fundamentally intellectually dishonest.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74185932822576052002013-01-13T20:56:16.424-05:002013-01-13T20:56:16.424-05:00People are optimistic about healthcare partly beca...People are optimistic about healthcare partly because *every* country in the world is establishing single-payer. Mexico will have it done in a few years. Even in the backwards, benighted US, Vermont is ready to go in 2017 and California has a large movement going.<br /><br />Free trade, unfortunately, has shown only a few signs of beginning to die -- the South American countries have rejected it (to their immense benefit) but nobody else has had the guts to.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-46085596337481877602013-01-13T20:54:23.813-05:002013-01-13T20:54:23.813-05:00Experimental economics is what firmly threw out th...Experimental economics is what firmly threw out the idea of "homo economicus" and proved it utterly, utterly wrong -- experimental economics is what showed the economics world that *people care about fairness*.<br /><br />Of course, the rest of the economics world didn't listen to the results of those experiments.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-60393838240680624002013-01-13T20:53:09.692-05:002013-01-13T20:53:09.692-05:00Corey: what you actually missed was an ancient pie...Corey: what you actually missed was an ancient piece of *empirically based* economic lore: professional clustering, the thing which causes all the shoe factories to locate in the same place, and to make it whichever place got there first. So, for computer programming to move requires fighting against that trend, which is a very slow process.<br /><br />As for why the future must suck, global warming, 'nuff said.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-44402531432367446072013-01-13T20:50:50.266-05:002013-01-13T20:50:50.266-05:00Indeed. Economists' failures to adopt models ...Indeed. Economists' failures to adopt models based on the actual results of experimental economics... is pathetic, really.<br /><br />Fairness is people's #1 priority in trading (for people who aren't psychopaths) and economists have built entire fairy castles by imagining that it isn't.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.com