Re: News Coverage and bad economics
It might be worth noting that Bill's original complaint concerned not amateurs generally, but NEWS MEDIA reporters and anchors. It is quite possible that the average economics ability of news media people is lower than the average economics ability of other non-economists. This has been established with mathematics: The average math GRE scores of those entering graduate schools of journalism are lower than those for all sutdents taking the GRE. If it's true for math, it could be true for economics. As for the comment about amateurs not being taken seriously when it comes to medicine, I'm not sure it's entirely true, even if they do get more respect than economists. People take Meryl Streep seriously when she spouts nonsense about Alar, and take Julia Roberts seriously when she says more research is needed on Rett Syndrome than the doctors at NIH allocate. See, for example: http://www.acsh.org/press/editorials/rettsyndrome052102.html --Robert On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:05:06AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amateurs and economics? As I recall, in the General Theory, towards the end of the book, Keynes called for, or came close to calling for, nationalization of business investment. If implemented, the proposal would have quickly created an out-and-out socialist system, with disastrous consequences. Fortunately, such a decision was not in the hands of Keynes or other economists. It was in the hands of the American electorate, a bunch of amateurs. And among these amateurs, only about 2% had historically supported socialist candidates who called for what Keynes was proposing. The amateurs were right, and Keynes was wrong. Now, one can dismiss this evidence as a mere anecdote. But keep in mind that we are talking about the man who was the most acclaimed economist of the 20th century, and we are considering his position on nothing less than capitalism vs. socialism, the most important and fundamental issue in economics and perhaps all of social science. In fact, amateurs and the general public have often demonstrated a kind of intuitive and inarticulate wisdom on social issues that has eluded intellectuals, including economists. Marc Poitras
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/9/03 9:49:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hilarious! I'd already killfiled AdmrlLocke, so I hadn't read his first message. Love your answer though. Wow, I had no idea that people on the list held me in such contempt, or indeed in contempt at all. What sin or sins have I committed?I've learned a great deal form the list and had come to look forward to the intellectual challengs it poses, but given the contempt in which other list members apparently hold me, shall I just unsubscribe then? David Levenstam
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...shall I just unsubscribe then? No. Although when you go on about statists you do sound a little like Marxists when they go on about captialists. :) -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
Please take these discussions of personalities off-list. Thanks! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/10/03 1:53:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: when you go on about statists you do sound a little like Marxists when they go on about captialists. :) -jsh I used statist-liberal and statist media to distinguish the adherents of big government from classical liberals. While Marxists may go on about capitalists, Marx actually thought that capitalists were a progressive force, having brought about an unprecedented abundance of material goods (he may have been the first economist or at least among the first economists to notice not merely that some European countries were wealthier than the rest of the world but that they had achieved something fundamentally new, the miracle of modern economic growth) and key to bringing on the inevitable communist revolution and the resulting anarchist socialist utopia. Maybe Marxists should study their own history. Marx, on the other hand, studied history, and he barely got anything right, so perhaps studying history doesn't guarantee good economics. :) David Levenstam
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/10/03 5:07:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please take these discussions of personalities off-list. Thanks! Especially given that it's my personality people were discussing, I wholeheartedly concur. It's bad enough to have to live with my personality 24/7 without hearing others talk about it. Thank you. David Levenstam
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/8/03 4:51:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mises said that everyone must learn economics because public policy is set by public opinion. It's an unrealistic demand, but it might be warranted, absent the death of democracy. My old economics mentor at University of Colorado used to say that anyone who couldn't compute compound interest shouldn't be able to vote. Amen. David Levenstam
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
Fred Foldvary a *crit : one is a better economist if one knows some law, history, geography, literature, political science, and philosophy. And besides his specialty, a good economist should know some history of thought, economic history, and something about the various schools of thought besides his own. True, but what do students in economics study all that? Too much maths usually divert students from all these topics : they just don't need all these to pass their exams. begin:vcard n:Girard;Bernard tel;work:0145446914 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.BernardGirard.com adr:;; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Bernard Girard end:vcard
RE: News Coverage and bad economics
Amateurs and economics? As I recall, in the General Theory, towards the end of the book, Keynes called for, or came close to calling for, nationalization of business investment. If implemented, the proposal would have quickly created an out-and-out socialist system, with disastrous consequences. Fortunately, such a decision was not in the hands of Keynes or other economists. It was in the hands of the American electorate, a bunch of amateurs. And among these amateurs, only about 2% had historically supported socialist candidates who called for what Keynes was proposing. The amateurs were right, and Keynes was wrong. Now, one can dismiss this evidence as a mere anecdote. But keep in mind that we are talking about the man who was the most acclaimed economist of the 20th century, and we are considering his position on nothing less than capitalism vs. socialism, the most important and fundamental issue in economics and perhaps all of social science. In fact, amateurs and the general public have often demonstrated a kind of intuitive and inarticulate wisdom on social issues that has eluded intellectuals, including economists. Marc Poitras
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
If you already know the correct answers better than the professor why are you taking the class instead of teaching it? JC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:41 AM Subject: Re: News Coverage and bad economics Yes, indeed I was informed recently that I recieved an A- instead of an A in one of my PhD courses because I include too much historical content in my exam answers. I suppose there's no better way to protect faulty theory than to ignore the lessons of economic history. In a message dated 1/9/03 7:00:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fred Foldvary a *crit : one is a better economist if one knows some law, history, geography, literature, political science, and philosophy. And besides his specialty, a good economist should know some history of thought, economic history, and something about the various schools of thought besides his own. True, but what do students in economics study all that? Too much maths usually divert students from all these topics : they just don't need all these to pass their exams. begin:vcard n:Girard;Bernard
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
Hilarious! I'd already killfiled AdmrlLocke, so I hadn't read his first message. Love your answer though. On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, John-Charles Bradbury wrote: If you already know the correct answers better than the professor why are you taking the class instead of teaching it? JC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:41 AM Subject: Re: News Coverage and bad economics Yes, indeed I was informed recently that I recieved an A- instead of an A in one of my PhD courses because I include too much historical content in my exam answers. I suppose there's no better way to protect faulty theory than to ignore the lessons of economic history. In a message dated 1/9/03 7:00:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fred Foldvary a *crit : one is a better economist if one knows some law, history, geography, literature, political science, and philosophy. And besides his specialty, a good economist should know some history of thought, economic history, and something about the various schools of thought besides his own. True, but what do students in economics study all that? Too much maths usually divert students from all these topics : they just don't need all these to pass their exams. begin:vcard n:Girard;Bernard
