Do you know more than economists?

[Platypus]

The truth is that economists prefer much more liberal policies that most Americans. And I can already hear the arguments now that it's only because they've been indoctrinated by the liberal establishment that they do. But those arguments aren't really worth anyone's time replying to. Their mind isn't going to change. For conservatives who aren't like that, what is your excuse? Do you really think you know more about economics than the majority of people who have devoted much of their life to studying it? Are you really that arrogant?

http://media.economist.com/images/20081004/CUS955.gif

 

[Platypus]

Doesn't let you embedd images from the app.

 

[oldreliable67]

The truth is that economists prefer much more liberal policies that most Americans. And I can already hear the arguments now that it's only because they've been indoctrinated by the liberal establishment that they do. But those arguments aren't really worth anyone's time replying to. Their mind isn't going to change. For conservatives who aren't like that, what is your excuse? Do you really think you know more about economics than the majority of people who have devoted much of their life to studying it? Are you really that arrogant?

http://media.economist.com/images/20081004/CUS955.gif

Contrary to your assertion, there are conservative economists. While, IIRC, most surveys indicate that there are fewer conservative than liberal economists, conservative economists are not extinct. They, like their liberal ilk, have also devoted much of their professional life to studying economics. Moreover, economists, be they of the liberal or the conservative persuasion, are both fallible. Both are subject to the same foibles and mistakes.

 

[Kushinator]

Both are subject to the same foibles and mistakes.

E.g, providing supply-side solutions to demand-driven problems or bastardized Keynesianism!

 

[Platypus]

Contrary to your assertion, there are conservative economists. While, IIRC, most surveys indicate that there are fewer conservative than liberal economists, conservative economists are not extinct. They, like their liberal ilk, have also devoted much of their professional life to studying economics. Moreover, economists, be they of the liberal or the conservative persuasion, are both fallible. Both are subject to the same foibles and mistakes.

So, I missed the part where you explain such a sharp difference as anything other than the conclusion of study.

 

[Temporal]

Economically our nation is becoming more and more neo-liberal, thanks to globalisation. Neo-cons generally do not fit with the classical conservative crowd. Our congress is mainly full of big spenders on both sides right now, the only difference is in how the money gets spent.

 

[oldreliable67]

So, I missed the part where you explain such a sharp difference as anything other than the conclusion of study.

Likewise, I missed the part where you justify or explain or otherwise document your assertion that: "The truth is that economists prefer much more liberal policies that most Americans." Thus far, that assertion remains just your opinion.

 

[Kushinator]

So, I missed the part where you explain such a sharp difference as anything other than the conclusion of study.

"Conservative economics" is entirely based on the assumption of the rational economic man (or woman!). Hence it is a dieing breed; but that does not mean that freshwater schools have not produced anything important in the last 25 years.

 

[samsmart]

Contrary to your assertion, there are conservative economists. While, IIRC, most surveys indicate that there are fewer conservative than liberal economists, conservative economists are not extinct. They, like their liberal ilk, have also devoted much of their professional life to studying economics. Moreover, economists, be they of the liberal or the conservative persuasion, are both fallible. Both are subject to the same foibles and mistakes.

Also, it should be noted that economic factors are always changing, which makes it harder to make accurate predictions. Since we are always advancing in new technologies it's difficult to factor how those technologies will change economies.

 

[Centinel]

The truth is that economists prefer much more liberal policies that most Americans. And I can already hear the arguments now that it's only because they've been indoctrinated by the liberal establishment that they do. But those arguments aren't really worth anyone's time replying to. Their mind isn't going to change. For conservatives who aren't like that, what is your excuse? Do you really think you know more about economics than the majority of people who have devoted much of their life to studying it? Are you really that arrogant?

http://media.economist.com/images/20081004/CUS955.gif

Economists don't all agree, that is true. Are we to assume that the theories held by the majority of economists are the correct ones? How do we know that the majority is right, and not the minority?

 

[StillBallin75]

Contrary to your assertion, there are conservative economists. While, IIRC, most surveys indicate that there are fewer conservative than liberal economists, conservative economists are not extinct. They, like their liberal ilk, have also devoted much of their professional life to studying economics. Moreover, economists, be they of the liberal or the conservative persuasion, are both fallible. Both are subject to the same foibles and mistakes.

Huh, I'd like to see some of that data. That's not the sense I've been getting from my college education.

 

[StillBallin75]

"Conservative economics" is entirely based on the assumption of the rational economic man (or woman!). Hence it is a dieing breed; but that does not mean that freshwater schools have not produced anything important in the last 25 years.

we all know there is no such thing as the rational woman (of any type!) :mrgreen:

 

[imagep]

Since macro economics is much more an academic subject than a practical one, and since there are few jobs in real industries for a macro-economists, and since it takes a terminal degree to even be considered an economist, most economist tend to be academics. Academics tend to be liberal. Thus, it should be of no suprise that economists tend to be liberal.

Most scientists tend to be agnostic or athists, part of the reason is that science doesn't always jive with religion. Similarally, economists tend to not be conservatives, because historical economic data tends to not fall of the side of conservative economic beliefs.

 

[TNAR]

The truth is that economists prefer much more liberal policies that most Americans. ... Do you really think you know more about economics than the majority of people who have devoted much of their life to studying it?

There is a very valid reason for the large numbers of economists who classify themselves as Democratically aligned politically but a thorough explanation would take far longer than I am willing to go into. For the Cliff-notes version you will need to set aside your biases and consider the following:

- Economics itself is supposed to be neutral just as every other science alleges to be. Unfortunately, humans are prone to biases and incentives which have the tendency to affect the opinions and studies performed by scientists. A perfect example would be the great consternation over global warming. There is ample evidence which shows that a delay in any significant actions in response to global warming is advised until a more in-depth study can be performed. However, there is an enormous amount of money to be made by scientists who support the man-made/Al Gore model of global warming which tends to skew results of tests. The same sort of political influences exist within the field of economics. In other words, there is a lot of money to be made by economists who suggest that the government is in a position to fix the problems of the economy.

- Economics itself is far from an agreed upon science. Most people will point to Adam Smith as the founder of modern economics when in reality he set the field back a few hundred years at best and sent the focus down a rabbit hole of problems which had already been solved. Today, the vast majority of economists have been educated based upon various "flavors" of Adam Smith's doctrines. The most powerful/popular schools of economic thought today are Marxist, Keynesian, and Chicago (Monetarist), with the Austrian school regaining popularity with the emergence of lost knowledge. The first three, which make up probably 95% of the major universities throughout the world, all believe that government intervention may be and should be used as a key policy measure for a successful economy. Only the Austrian school shows the negative effects of all government intervention.

- Because the major tenets of the foundational economic ideology within mainstream economics encourages government intervention, it is a simple step forward to find the sorts of economists who push policies which support this sort of intervention. Until recently the Democratic party was the ideal political platform for this since the Republican party pushed for a limited government. Obviously this is no longer the case and we can see a rise in the numbers of economists who consider themselves as Republican within the last 30 years or so as that party becomes more in favor of government largesse.


The fact is, economics is easy. It is completely unnecessary to devote your entire life to study its innermost secrets because they do not exist. Sure, there are many nuances and finer theories which require dedication and study but the basic foundations of economics are supremely simple. For the simple fact that you know how much you would pay for a particular item at any given point in time gives you the expertise necessary to show that top-down planning of an economy is not only impossible but detrimental to the success and happiness of everyone.

 

[celticwar17]

weird, had 3 different econ proffessor's and they all were far from liberal. They all seemed to be libertarian/capitalist. Economist tend to stay out of the dramatic parts of policy's(like entitlements and taxes) unless they are liberal themselves.

 

[TurtleDude]

weird, had 3 different econ proffessor's and they all were far from liberal. They all seemed to be libertarian/capitalist. Economist tend to stay out of the dramatic parts of policy's(like entitlements and taxes) unless they are liberal themselves.

economists who are paid with tax dollars tend to be big fans of government spending.

 

[Stewart]

I think it's more that Econ tends to be more academic. Academics also tend to be more liberal in their thinking.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I think it's more that Econ tends to be more academic. Academics also tend to be more liberal in their thinking.

People more liberal in their thinking tend to recognize that private enterprise may not really value their thinking, and so they remain in the self-congratulatory shelter of academia. Just a thought.


To the topic though, here's what a modern economist might conclude: IF giving a tantruming child in a grocery store the candy bar he wants is less economically costly than letting him tantrum, or punishing him for the tantrum, then the best response is to buy the candy bar in response to the tantrum. While the economist has a rational defense for his position, I will still call him an idiot, because you never reward a tantruming kid with the thing he's tantruming about.

 

[Ahlevah]

Do you really think you know more about economics than the majority of people who have devoted much of their life to studying it? Are you really that arrogant?

Arrogance is thinking you know more about employment when you've never exited your ivory tower long enough to employ anyone, or you think you know more about jobs when you've never held one outside of government or academia. But, honestly, when it comes to the really important stuff, even a moron realizes that if he spends more than he earns he'll eventually go broke. If these these supposed (in your words, "liberal") economic geniuses are so smart, why do they keep advising countries to borrow and spend money they don't have until they reach a point at which the cost of borrowing exceeds revenues and they can't pay it back?

This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises

 

[whysoserious]

Arrogance is thinking you know more about employment when you've never exited your ivory tower long enough to employ anyone, or you think you know more about jobs when you've never held one outside of government or academia. But, honestly, when it comes to the really important stuff, even a moron realizes that if he spends more than he earns he'll eventually go broke. If these these supposed (in your words, "liberal") economic geniuses are so smart, why do they keep advising countries to borrow and spend money they don't have until they reach a point at which the cost of borrowing exceeds revenues and they can't pay it back?

This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises

Who said they are? If Congress listened to them to begin with, taxes would have been higher during the early 2000's and spending would have dropped. That was our time for a surplus, and it was missed. Now we need to get out of this recession before we have a shot at it again.

 

[oldreliable67]

Huh, I'd like to see some of that data. That's not the sense I've been getting from my college education.

Here is one bit you might find interesting, from Economists’ policy views and voting

"Abstract. In Spring 2003, a survey of 1000 economists was conducted using a randomly
generated membership list from the American Economics Association. The survey contained
questions about 18 policy issues, voting behavior, and several background variables. The responsewas
264 (nonblank) surveys. The responses showthat most economists are supporters of
safety regulations, gun control, redistribution, public schooling, and anti-discrimination laws.
They are evenly mixed on personal choice issues, military action, and the minimum wage.
Most economists oppose tighter immigration controls, government ownership of enterprise
and tariffs. In voting, the Democratic:Republican ratio is 2.5:1. These results are compared to
those of previous surveys of economists. We itemize a series of important questions raised by
these results."

[emphasis added]

Dilbert creator Scott Adams did the world a favor by conducting his own research on this topic, found here. An excerpt to whet your appetite:

"Nationally, most economists are male and registered as either Democrats or Independents. The survey sample reflects that imbalance. 48% Democrats
17% Republicans
27% Independents
3% Libertarian
5% Other or not registered

86% of the economists surveyed are male, and 65% work in the field of academia or education. The rest are spread across various industries or not working."

Adams might well be the most unbiased bit research out there!

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Okay, so liberals are always correct in history, they're now correct on economics, and then what? A thread on how liberals are better at sports? Give me a break.
Ever heard of Keynesian economics, communism, other failed economic schools of the left? Liberal economics failed as much as conservative economics do.

 

[imagep]

Okay, so liberals are always correct in history, they're now correct on economics, and then what? A thread on how liberals are better at sports? Give me a break.
Ever heard of Keynesian economics, communism, other failed economic schools of the left? Liberal economics failed as much as conservative economics do.

Keynsian economics is not a liberal thing, although many conservatives have twisted and distorted the meaning into something that it's not. You are acting as though Keynesian economics has failed. We can fail at something we have never tried, and we have never practiced Keynsian economics, we are not doing it now, we didn't do it when the stimulous plan was signed into law, and we didn't do it under Bush or Clinton. I just wish that people would learn what Keynesian economics actually is.

 

[1Perry]

IMO we for the most part only hear from economists with a political point to grind or that has a position to push for personal gain. IMO neither of these represent "economists". They simply get most of the ink.

 

[oldreliable67]

IMO we for the most part only hear from economists with a political point to grind or that has a position to push for personal gain. IMO neither of these represent "economists". They simply get most of the ink.

You have a point. There are many economists employed by think-tank or other 'research' organizations, most, if not all of which, have a political agenda. The output from these economists supports that pov and supported by relatively strong resources, tends to get a good bit of ink . The independent economists seem to be mostly in academia, and unless he or she produces something relatively unique (e.g., Roubini before his housing bubble/recession call; Shiller with his housing index and PE ratios), thereby garnering some attention, they don't get anywhere close to the exposure that the 'linked-up' folks do.

The foregoing are generalizations, of course, and one can presumably find exceptions.