Hi Billy, On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:54 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Who were the economists in this survey ? Their errors are obvious > and sometimes are monumental.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/participants > To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a > keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be > geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and > Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all > senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. > The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of > the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics > Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican > members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors > of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the > advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be > familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with > impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters. Maybe they're all wrong. Then again, maybe you are... -- Ernie P. > > > 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] > 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-controversial-issues-where-all-economists-agree/255600/ > > Adam Ozimek — 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, congestion pricing is good, eliminating tax deductions > and lowering rates is efficient, and the tax deductibility of healthcare > creates consequential distortions. > > 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 -- 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
