Economists Are Surprisingly Partisan

[Jack Hays]

Economists follow their ideology in their work, according to 538. Perhaps not a surprise, but 538 makes it an interesting discussion.

Political Economy
Economists Aren’t As Nonpartisan As We Think

By Zubin Jelveh, Bruce Kogut and Suresh Naidu

According to purists, the field of economics is supposed to be free of political ideology. Economics views itself as a science[SUP]1[/SUP] and the prevailing consensus, best articulated by Nobel-winner and Chicago-school doyen George Stigler, is that “the dominant influence” in economics “is the set of internal values and pressures of the discipline” which help keep it nonpartisan.


And yet most well-known economists achieve their star status in the political sphere. The econowonks reading this could name the politics of economists Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw without much hesitation. And a little Googling would uncover the ideological leanings of Martin Feldstein, John Cochrane, Christina Romer or Jonathan Gruber. Even Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo had disagreements over free trade that were mirrored in the House of Commons.


Still, economists’ beliefs are separate from what makes them successful academics: their research prowess. We can easily discount the political opinions economists express in op-eds. But they’re also publishing research in peer-reviewed journals. Are findings on tax rates, minimum wages or government spending also influenced by ideology?


This is not just navel-gazing, as economics research informs public policy.[SUP]2[/SUP] A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of the minimum wage describes how results from academia influenced the CBO’s projections. If those findings were at least partially influenced by political beliefs, then the CBO’s assessments may be unwittingly biased.


So we set out to test the idea of nonpartisan economics on a large scale. In a recent paper, we researched whether economists’ political leanings were associated with their professional work.[SUP]3[/SUP] The answer: yes. . . .

 

[Declan]

Probably a chicken or egg thing. Economics is not a science. It is math + fiscal policy opinions

 

[WallStreetVixen]

Economists subscribe to a school of thought, that may or may not separate from their political leanings. Most Neo-Keynesians tend to be leftist. Paul Krugman is a liberal, and is also a Neo-Keynesian. Bernanke was considered a Keynesian by the Austrian crowd, but he always struck me more like a Monetarist to me. You have the Austrians, who seemly align more with the libertarian/archo-capitalism crowd. Then you have Neoclassical macroeconomics, which can align with any position. Most of these schools have mande genuine contributions to the field of economics, and I value any input from either school (except for Georgist and Marxist. They really annoy me...).

Politics only influence economic findings, if you allow it.

 

[imagep]

Probably a chicken or egg thing. Economics is not a science. It is math + fiscal policy opinions

Microeconomics is to macroeconomics what psychology is to sociology.

I think economics (as a whole) is more of a cross between a social studies and accounting.

 

[RGacky3]

The problem With economics bieng a science is each School chooses what to and what to not include in it's calculations.

Just try explaining the concept of externalities and systemic effects to a libertarian here ... it just goes straight past them.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The problem that economics has from the start is that it is the only science that has to be included in political debates. That automatically makes it subject to intuitions over science.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I also find it funny how the two Abenomics threads are blaming left leaning economics when it is evident from this research that the bank of Japan is practicing right leaning economics.

 

[DA60]

I also find it funny how the two Abenomics threads are blaming left leaning economics when it is evident from this research that the bank of Japan is practicing right leaning economics.

What possible difference does it make which way the policies 'lean'?

I say they are Keynesian - you say they are not...who cares?

What matters is what those policies are and how effective they are...not which way they lean.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

What possible difference does it make which way the policies 'lean'?

I say they are Keynesian - you say they are not...who cares?

What matters is what those policies are and how effective they are...not which way they lean.

I agree, now you should work on using exactly what you said in your posts, instead of constantly blaming Keynesians and misattributing everything to them.

 

[DA60]

I agree, now you should work on using exactly what you said in your posts, instead of constantly blaming Keynesians and misattributing everything to them.

Call 'em as I see 'em.

But I see no point on dwelling on it.

 

[DA60]

I agree, now you should work on using exactly what you said in your posts, instead of constantly blaming Keynesians and misattributing everything to them.

Additionally, I have already proven to my satisfaction that they are Keynesians more then Monetarists. I posted links to sources that I think confirms that. And there is virtually no chance you will change my mind.

Why should I call a blue ball a red ball when it is clearly blue? I am not going to spend time trying to convince someone who is (IMO) colorblind that the ball is blue...I just don't care that much. If they want to (IMO) mistakenly believe it's red, whatever.

In the end, it matters little...what matters is there is a ball and what the ball can do, not what name it has.

You call it red and I will call it blue...why dwell on it?

 

[DA60]

I agree, now you should work on using exactly what you said in your posts, instead of constantly blaming Keynesians and misattributing everything to them.

Finally...one for the road...(okay, so I am bored)...

'Abe's Keynesian-inspired plan, dubbed "Abenomics,"'

Abenomics and the Japanese Economy - Council on Foreign Relations


With all due respect, I think the Council on Foreign Relations knows better then someone on a chat forum what is or is not Keynesianism.

'The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921, is a United States nonprofit, 4900 member organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its membership has included senior politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures.'

Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, I assume if Keynes himself came back from the dead an agreed with me, you still wouldn't.

So...I guess we are done here for now.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Finally...one for the road...(okay, so I am bored)...

'Abe's Keynesian-inspired plan, dubbed "Abenomics,"'

Abenomics and the Japanese Economy - Council on Foreign Relations


With all due respect, I think the Council on Foreign Relations knows better then someone on a chat forum what is or is not Keynesianism.

'The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), founded in 1921, is a United States nonprofit, 4900 member organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its membership has included senior politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures.'

Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, I assume if Keynes himself came back from the dead an agreed with me, you still wouldn't.

So...I guess we are done here for now.

This is where reading comprehension is key. Here is the part of the source you use that calls it Keynesian:

"Abe's Keynesian-inspired plan, dubbed "Abenomics," takes a three-pronged approach to reflate the economy through monetary, fiscal, and structural policies. It includes a hefty stimulus package worth 20.2 trillion yen ($210 billion), of which 10.3 trillion ($116 billion) would come in government spending with a focus on infrastructure."

Notice how it only calls the FISCAL portion Keynesian. Which I agree with.

However the large majority of "money printing" is coming from monetary stimulus, which is a market monetarist approach. As you can see here the monetary stimulus has been almost 40% of GDP, that is incredibly massive. Bank Of Japan Announces More Quantitative Easing: The Next Chapter In Abenomics - Forbes

Do you understand the difference?

 

[KevinKohler]

If it were a science, the predictions would be a lot more accurate.

 

[DA60]

I am not surprised that 'economists' are so partisan.

Most economists, especially the more known, are pretty much useless imo. Most of them either rarely/never worked in the economics field and just have lots of useless diplomas on their walls (like Paul Krugman) or are pretty inept at economics themslves, but are great at sounding like they know what they are talking about...so they go on CNBC, yak for a few minutes (usually getting it wrong) and then go to conferences and sell books.
Just look at the last two big downturns (dot.com and housing crashes)? Almost all economists COMPLETELY missed both of them...yet, both of them should have been ridiculously simple to anticipate as the signs were almost EVERYWHERE.
Besides, if these people are so brilliant, why are they not all billionaires? Because they are much better at talking economics then understanding economics (same for central bankers...little more then glorified bean counters).

The only economists I listen to are those with their own money in the game and who have a proven track record.

My experience has been that most 'economists' are just mouthpiece's...and those types are usually very partisan.
But investors are usually another matter. The successful ones got to where they are by keeping an open mind and using common sense - not ideology - to make their investment choices.

 

[pdog]

The study classifies an economists' political bias by analyzing campaign contributions combined with petition signing and then comparing that to a classification of works authored by the economist. That latter classification based on a predetermined set of partisan phrases. It would be great to get a look at what those phrases were, but of course, the link is dead:

http://www.santafe.edu/~snaidu/topics.pdf

 

[pdog]

I am not surprised that 'economists' are so partisan.

Most economists, especially the more known, are pretty much useless imo. Most of them either rarely/never worked in the economics field and just have lots of useless diplomas on their walls (like Paul Krugman) or are pretty inept at economics themslves, but are great at sounding like they know what they are talking about...so they go on CNBC, yak for a few minutes (usually getting it wrong) and then go to conferences and sell books.

DA can you post your credentials please? I'm not sure what relevance your completely unfounded opinion of people is, but if we're going to knock people with PHds from MIT, then I suppose I should be asking why I'm better off listening to you.

Just look at the last two big downturns (dot.com and housing crashes)? Almost all economists COMPLETELY missed both of them...yet, both of them should have been ridiculously simple to anticipate as the signs were almost EVERYWHERE.

False (including for Krugman):
Investor Home - Who Predicted the Global Financial Crisis and/or Housing Crash

 

[upsideguy]

If it were a science, the predictions would be a lot more accurate.

.... accurate like weather predictions and climate predictions? Is that the type of hard science precision you are talking about?

 

[upsideguy]

DA can you post your credentials please? I'm not sure what relevance your completely unfounded opinion of people is, but if we're going to knock people with PHds from MIT, then I suppose I should be asking why I'm better off listening to you.




False (including for Krugman):
Investor Home - Who Predicted the Global Financial Crisis and/or Housing Crash

Yep, ya gotta love this lay people that likely had no more than 6 hours of economics in college, if that, telling us how Nobel prizing winning economists sporting PhDs from some of the finest academic institutions in the world don't know what they are talking about.....

Of course, to any reasonably intelligent, objective individual, the "don't know what they are talking about" culprit is pretty obvious.

 

[upsideguy]

Economists follow their ideology in their work, according to 538. Perhaps not a surprise, but 538 makes it an interesting discussion.

Political Economy
Economists Aren’t As Nonpartisan As We Think

By Zubin Jelveh, Bruce Kogut and Suresh Naidu

According to purists, the field of economics is supposed to be free of political ideology. Economics views itself as a science[SUP]1[/SUP] and the prevailing consensus, best articulated by Nobel-winner and Chicago-school doyen George Stigler, is that “the dominant influence” in economics “is the set of internal values and pressures of the discipline” which help keep it nonpartisan.


And yet most well-known economists achieve their star status in the political sphere. The econowonks reading this could name the politics of economists Paul Krugman and Greg Mankiw without much hesitation. And a little Googling would uncover the ideological leanings of Martin Feldstein, John Cochrane, Christina Romer or Jonathan Gruber. Even Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo had disagreements over free trade that were mirrored in the House of Commons.


Still, economists’ beliefs are separate from what makes them successful academics: their research prowess. We can easily discount the political opinions economists express in op-eds. But they’re also publishing research in peer-reviewed journals. Are findings on tax rates, minimum wages or government spending also influenced by ideology?


This is not just navel-gazing, as economics research informs public policy.[SUP]2[/SUP] A recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of the minimum wage describes how results from academia influenced the CBO’s projections. If those findings were at least partially influenced by political beliefs, then the CBO’s assessments may be unwittingly biased.


So we set out to test the idea of nonpartisan economics on a large scale. In a recent paper, we researched whether economists’ political leanings were associated with their professional work.[SUP]3[/SUP] The answer: yes. . . .

I really am not sure what the surprise is here..... most political theory is intertwined with economic theory. Of course Economist are going to fall into political camps consistent with the economic theory they espouse.

Its almost like being shocked that people that liberal tend to vote Democrat or people that are conservative tend to lean Republican.

 

[Jack Hays]

I really am not sure what the surprise is here..... most political theory is intertwined with economic theory. Of course Economist are going to fall into political camps consistent with the economic theory they espouse.

Its almost like being shocked that people that liberal tend to vote Democrat or people that are conservative tend to lean Republican.

I just found it interesting.

 

[Libertie76]

The problem With economics bieng a science is each School chooses what to and what to not include in it's calculations.

Just try explaining the concept of externalities and systemic effects to a libertarian here ... it just goes straight past them.

Or you can always bring up the Hayek knowledge theory or the mises calculations of socialism debate and watch how socialists run to the hills and do things like make up " theoretical markets"

And if you read any austrian economics mises and Hayek, whom I quotes earlier discuss concept of externalities and systemic effects/ systemic risks

Concept of externalities, according to mises is due to a lack/knowledge of understanding personal property

Systemic effects in a free market would obviously view something that is T.B.T.F as an atrocity against the free-market because it invites a ruling force to protect property above the over competing members in the market, such as going beyond the boundaries of rothbard in man, economy, state.

 

[pdog]

I really am not sure what the surprise is here..... most political theory is intertwined with economic theory. Of course Economist are going to fall into political camps consistent with the economic theory they espouse.

Its almost like being shocked that people that liberal tend to vote Democrat or people that are conservative tend to lean Republican.

That's what I thought it was at first too. It seems like a no-brainer that an economist would support policies that he found in his own research to be "true".

However, I don't think that's what it is. They classified phrases as left or right leaning - presumably because of some Freudian slip like saying "large" instead of "larger". For example the CBO always talks about the effects of changes to marginal tax rates. However, they never talk about at which income levels which to me points to conservative leanings.

But there's the rub of the whole article - he chose to include those phrases in a separate article which is no longer available. Why not include them in an appendix? Maybe it was 100s or thousands of phrases - or maybe the guy had his own biases against economists. I believe there was also some machine classification, using known economists as a lean as models, but without that phrase list, it's tough for the average guy to take much from it.

 

[RGacky3]

1. Or you can always bring up the Hayek knowledge theory or the mises calculations of socialism debate and watch how socialists run to the hills and do things like make up " theoretical markets"

And if you read any austrian economics mises and Hayek, whom I quotes earlier discuss concept of externalities and systemic effects/ systemic risks

Concept of externalities, according to mises is due to a lack/knowledge of understanding personal property

2. Systemic effects in a free market would obviously view something that is T.B.T.F as an atrocity against the free-market because it invites a ruling force to protect property above the over competing members in the market, such as going beyond the boundaries of rothbard in man, economy, state.

1. That calculations "debate" is only relevant for centralized state planning (and is also just as relevant against large conglomorate planning really), and honestly, hte majority of socialist thinkers throughout history have not been "big state" socialists.

2. That's nonsenes .... if I pollute the air, the air is no ones personal property ... if I pollute a river the river is no ones property, if I start to fire People in my large Company, which causes other Companies to do the same, and thus leads to other Companies going out of buisiness out of lack of demand, no one's "property" is being violated.

To big to fail wouldn't invite a ruling force to protect property above others ... it just means that a Company gets so big that if it fails it destroys the economy, whether or not a ruling force protects it.

Just saying externalities is due to lakc of knowldge of personal property isn't actually addressing the huge issue.

THe same With systemic effects.

 

[Libertie76]

1. That calculations "debate" is only relevant for centralized state planning (and is also just as relevant against large conglomorate planning really), and honestly, hte majority of socialist thinkers throughout history have not been "big state" socialists.

2. That's nonsenes .... if I pollute the air, the air is no ones personal property ... if I pollute a river the river is no ones property, if I start to fire People in my large Company, which causes other Companies to do the same, and thus leads to other Companies going out of buisiness out of lack of demand, no one's "property" is being violated.


THe same With systemic effects.

1. Socialists calculations call against socialism and shows how a central planning economy is needed in socialism. The hayekian knowledge theory did blows to the central planning, however if you understood the calculations theory of mises he discusses the reality that there is no sufficient way to calculate gross vs net in socialism, and things like the "stabile market" will never bring out advanced technology and can never efficiently economize the actual needs of society, without a central economic outcome.

2. As I said, if you read any counter arguments towards your claims without suggesting it was some "darkening blow" against the libertarian movement. It's more difficult of the problems that arrive in the free market economics I will give you that however the externalities theories are placed in two categories, such as

A. Bad externalities "pollutants". This theory is discussed by rothbard, where he gives examples of pollutants. He gives us the idea of the homestead theory, such as, if you own the property first you are awarded the rights of the issue. Such as, if you pollute a river and it destroys a community the idea is whomever owned the property first is at fault, bringing it back to mises theory of "lack of knowledge" thus, a factory polluting town that has been built for a couple hundred years would need to come to an agreement with the property's owners of that town

This theory does a blow to the free market because it tries to decide who's at fault with property against property and it states that increased taxes / regulations are necessary to prevent it. Thus, causing the actual production process to fall short of the equilibrium price, or being insufficient.

However, if you understand the worries of the homestead act this does not happen. It actually might make it for a business to have to spend money causing the production to possibly alter which could even give more business to a competing business etc etc, thus through the free market the polluting factory could be out of work due to lack of knowledge of property, or bad ownership

B. The good externalities are if a beekeepers bees pollinate a botanists flowers thus causing the need for subsidies towards one or the other in order to sustain both companies. Again, if you only realize that the two companies could expand horizontally, or you can go through the market and negotiate actual terms. But, if the flowers are there first then he beekeeper can't raise prices on the botanist, if the bees are there first the botanist can't raise prices on the beekeeper

The big issue people have with this set of explanations is because it "destroys ethical laws" or laws based on ethics. Such as your example, shouldn't it be illegal to create protection of workers due to market failures of one company. However, not in a free market. It might be non ethical to not help the workers, however it is ethical to punish the company owner because he couldn't sustain himself in the free market. There will always be entrepreneurs, even laborers are constant entrepreneurs, so if a business fails the laborer will simply go to another business.

This too big too fail through initial growth is impossible in the free market, according to rothbard " man economy state" the boundaries of the firm are only reflective of the free market. I'd love to hear how you can "debunk" rothbards boundaries of the firm theory

If you understand austrian economics is decorated as common sense responses in economic terms. So if you had expanded the thought of mises then you would of realized there is an actual substantial counter argument towards these free market blows, however the concepts prove that these theories didn't leave the austrian school, however maybe isn't the focus of the thought coming out of it, but your initial claim that libertarians don't know what it is is false. However id love your counter arguments towards the socialist calculation theories of mises to prove my initial claim is false