Should have said " Can be worse than..." Obviously the really bad conservative economists are not all conservative economists. My bad. Billy --------------------------- 4/10/2012 10:45:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Worse than Marx?? The Green Party?? Really, no, REALLY??? Sometimes you worry me. This is one of those times. David _ "Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection."—Neal Boortz On 4/10/2012 6:54 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Ernie : As much as I like the Atlantic, I am beginning to like it less and less. This is a prime example of why. The Atlantic seems to more-and-more be captive to "Washington consensus" Democrats and their Wall Street Republican allies. Who were the economists in this survey ? Their errors are obvious and sometimes are monumental. Comments below in the text. BTW, this is NOT some sort of endorsement for conservative economists who, IMHO, are, if anything, worse than economists of the hard Left. But to say that "economists" agree, as this article does, and not let on to the fact that these are all establishment economists, is blatantly dishonest. Billy =================================== 4/10/2012 1:58:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: We can't spend -all- our time bashing economics as a discipline. :-) E 4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic _http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/4-politically-controver sial-issues-where-all-economists-agree/255600/_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/4-politically-controversial-issues-where-all-econom ists-agree/255600/) ____________________________________ _Adam Ozimek_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/print/2012/04/4-politically-controversial-issues-where-all-economists-agree/255600/www.modeledbehavi or.com) — blogger at Modeled Behavior and associate at Econsult Corporation In reading the sometimes polarized debate in the economics blogosphere, the discipline often appears to suffer from an excess of disagreement and uncertainty. But this is more about the incentives economists face when writing and speaking in the public sphere than the actual state of knowledge in the field. In reality economists agree about a lot of things, and in many cases they do so with a high degree of certainty. This fact is on display frequently at the _IGM Economic Experts_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel) Panel from the University of Chicago. This is a panel of 41 of the worlds top economists who are offered statements about economic policy to which they can indicate whether they agree, disagree, or are uncertain. In addition they rate the certainty of their answer on a scale of 1 to 10, which allows the answers to be weighted. Over the past few months there have been several issues where this ideologically diverse group of economists have shown resounding unanimity. Some of these may surprise people, as it’s fairly obvious that public opinion would not side with economists with the same amount of unanimity. So here are a few things economists strongly agree on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The benefits of free trade and NAFTA far outweigh the costs None of the economists surveyed _disagreed_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m) that the gains to freer trade are much larger than any costs. And only two economists even said that the answer is uncertain. In a space for additional comments, MIT’s Richard Schmalensee declared “If that’s not right, almost all of economics is wrong”. Which is to speak of the kind of economists in this survey, not all economists. There clearly are trade-offs here as elsewhere. And how these worthies managed to ignore the effects of free trade policies on demography escapes me completely. Free trade encourages borderless-ness and a flood of the poor to rich countries, in the process depressing wages and the purchasing power of citizens of these countries. Then there is the way that free trade wrecks whole industries within nations. Free Trade ignores all values except gross bottom line calculations and in the process distorts social values, legal precedents, and runs roughshod over legitimate concerns about national ( or even international ) security. What are the added costs to gvt and to society at large due to huge increases in security costs ? Yes, Islam is responsible sui generis for a large part of these costs, but the way the state ( especially in the USA ) has gone about trying to manage security is also responsible and a large part of state policy rests on the presumed "good" across the board of free trade policies. Except that free trade sometimes ( or often ) produces irrationalities in non bottom-line areas of life and the economy. Economists have emphasized the benefits of free trade for a long time, reflecting the field’s belief in the importance of specialization, comparative advantage, and gains from trade. Indeed, these results are similar to _other surveys_ (http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/08/24/consensu-among-economists/) that show economists strongly supporting free trade. So why do pundits and voters lag economists in supporting free trade? In his excellent book The Myth of the Rational Voter, Bryan Caplan provides evidence that people suffer from a handful of systematic biases that influence their beliefs, and three of these can help explain why voters are skeptical of trade: anti-market bias, anti-foreign bias, and pessimism bias. Paul Krugman _provides_ (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm) three reasons why intellectuals in particular resist the theory of comparative advantage that underpins free trade: 1) opposition to free trade is intellectually fashionable, 2) comparative advantage is hard to understand, and 3) they are averse to a fundamentally mathematical understanding of the world. As is reflected in the comments by some of the panelists trade will create winners and losers, which may also explain some opposition to trade. But economists on the left and the right still struggle the understand the level of opposition to trade, and the rejection of the overall gains. Whatever their reasons for resisting, people should follow economists lead and embrace the fact that the gains from freer trade outweigh the costs. -------------------------------------------------------------- Government policies don’t explain high gas prices Individual’s beliefs about the extent to which the U.S. government should be blamed for high gas prices seems to have a strangely strong correlation with whether they like whoever happens to be in charge at the time. Economists on the other hand _strongly reject_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6WobHKFEZbGbS84) the idea that the government has much affect on these prices. None of the surveyed economists disagreed with the following statement: --------------------------------------------- “Changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies.” What unmitigated nonsense. There are all kinds of things that gvt can do to bring about favorable gas prices, such as allowing drilling, granting permits, negotiating with foreign oil producers, approving pipelines, selective regulation to favor or disfavor production practices of one set of companies over others, expediting construction of refineries, and so forth. Yes, there are trade-offs in all kinds of areas and reduction of oil prices may not always be optimal policy, but to speak just to the issue of prices there is much the gvt can do. Furthermore, to say that all oil pricing is due to laws of supply and demand is pure hokum. Speculation has a lot to do with pricing as well and gvt has the power to curtail speculation. So why do people blame politicians when gas prices rise? Supply and demand, of course. Ideological pundits and politicians are happy to supply arguments blaming incumbent politicians, and ideological individuals are eager to believe them. People should set their ideologies aside and accept the sometimes inconvenient fact that market forces, not politicians, have been the primary driver of gas prices over the past 10 years. -------------------------------------------------- The Stimulus and Bailouts Lowered the Unemployment Rate Economists may differ on whether the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was worth the cost overall, but they are in _solid agreement_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6WobHKFE ZbGbS84) that as of the end of 2010 it lowered the unemployment rate. Very few disagreed with or were uncertain about this. In contrast, a significant number questioned whether the recovery act was worth the cost. Importantly, in the space for comments, Stanford’s Pete Klenow emphasized what Scott Sumner and others would say is the central issue: “how much was it offset by less aggressive (than otherwise) unconventional monetary policy?” But even stimulus skeptics should keep their criticisms in perspective: economists strongly reject the idea that stimulus is to blame for our economic woes. If so, these economists are not thinking clearly. There is, after all, a major consideration that seems to be overlooked. Was the bailout managed to best effect or even managed well generally ? On the contrary, by giving megabanks a blank check to do what they wanted, essentially hoard gvt cash to buy smaller banks, they kept the housing market depressed and in the process killed the construction industry, which, in turn, killed jobs everywhere since construction is a vital multiplier in the overall economy. In addition, economists _strongly agree_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_a4WFSSCbjqpjWW8) that the bank bailouts also lowered the unemployment rate. Of course as Austen Goolsbee commented: “the fact it was necessary doesn’t mean we should be happy about it.” ------------------------------------------------------- The Gold Standard is a Terrible Idea False choice. PARTIAL re-metalization could have important benefits, especially in stabilization of the worth of the dollar and, in the process, such things as gas prices --which are pegged to the dollar in world markets. This is an issue that has returned to a certain prominence in the last few years. But despite it’s popularity among some on the right — and Ron Paul fans in particular — economists _overwhelmingly_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_cw1nNUYOXSAKwrq) agree that the gold standard is a bad idea. In this sample of leading economists, 100% of disagreed with the claim that returning to a gold standard would improve price-stability or employment outcomes. Nobody even answered uncertain, because this question really isn’t up for debate anymore. ------------------------------------------------------------ Some Other Things Economists Agree On Rent control is _bad_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6Gw7RTJefXPg0o4) , congestion pricing is _good_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_ 6Gw7RTJefXPg0o4) , eliminating tax deductions and lowering rates is _efficient_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6Gw7RTJefXPg0o4) , and the tax deductibility of healthcare creates _consequential distortions_ (http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_6Gw7RTJefXPg0o4) . So economists can agree, and with a high degree of certainty. You just have to ask the right questions. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
