Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Garett Jones More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (6 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/356
The author at De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum in a related article titled Mais advogados, mais rent-seeking? writes:
The author at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science in a related article titled Why are there so few economists in elected office? writes:
COMMENTS (15 to date)
Glen Smith writes:
Too often, the economist surrenders to his/her party. They simply become the guys who the party leaders go to to spray economic perfume on those policies their party wishes to support or spray economic mace on those policies their party wishes to reject regardless of the the economists analysis of the policy. Often, depending on which party will get the credit/blame for a policy, they switch their views on the same policy to fit with the party's needs. Posted September 12, 2005 1:33 PM
Timothy writes:
Glen seems to have hit on what exactly happened to Paul Krugman in the last few years. But, RE Oil: The market isn't saying "drive less" per se, but "use less gas or use less of other stuff". For us commuters in cities with bad public transit, that means drive an economy car, which I already do. And, honestly, even $2.75 a gallon isn't putting too big a squeeze on me. Do I wish it was cheaper? Yeah, but I wish my salary was the same and everything was cheaper, or that my salary was higher. If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak. Posted September 12, 2005 2:46 PM
George writes:
Underrepresented? Not on TV: Martin Sheen on The West Wing is President, and he's not just an economist he's a Nobel laureate economist. (In case that were too believable, they also made him a Democrat.) Posted September 12, 2005 3:10 PM
Dan Landau writes:
You got it exactly right. George Stigler said, “People choose the experts that say what they want to hear.” The story around Chicago was that Milton Friedman turned down many invitations to be in various presidents’ cabinets because it would require too many compromises of his economic principles. The problem is, if people don’t want to listen to experts, how do we say they are rational? Posted September 12, 2005 5:40 PM
El Presidente writes:
Telling people what they do not want to hear and getting elected to office are two very distinct jobs. You must be my soul mate. No, that's not possible. But surely you understand the politician's (public servant's) dilemma. You would like to do something good for other people. You need to use the authority of office to do so. You have to get elected. People must approve of you. You must win their acceptance and adoration. You tell them the half of the truth they have ears to hear. You never live it down. Of course voters are irrational in the sense that they discount expertise. That's why I prefer to look at elections as group exercises of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, inconsequential. In California we need look no further than the election of a rank amateur to the highest office in the state. This is reform? This is suicide by democracy (using the "d" word loosely). I don't think it has to be this way but I think politicians get lazy, get tired, and get hungry. It's not an easy career path until you get that first big win. Maybe this is a great opportunity for all of you laissez faire types to get behind strong education policy so we can have an informed electorate. Any takers? Posted September 13, 2005 12:11 AM
Robin Hanson writes:
If economists tell people what they don't want to hear, what do economists want to hear? Do economists tell other economists what they want to hear, or what they want to say? Posted September 13, 2005 5:31 AM
N. writes:
That is an excellent question. Posted September 13, 2005 8:38 AM
Michael H. writes:
I wonder how many economists have ever run for national office. It might be that the few who have the means to pursue public office, like Arnold Kling, choose to do other things. It is not guaranteed that if more economists ran for office, there would be more economists elected, but my guess is that the odds of more economists getting elected would increase dramatically. Posted September 13, 2005 10:31 AM
eddie writes:
Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but my reaction to the news that there aren't a lot of economists in the Congress and Senate was "Well, duh!". It's not just that, as Arnold puts it, "Telling people what they do not want to hear and getting elected to office are two very distinct jobs." Anything and getting elected to office are distinct jobs; getting elected is a job unto itself and is rather unlike any other productive human activity. Those who hold office are by and large those who have spent the bulk of their adult lives attempting to hold office or preparing to attempt to hold office. I think the proportion of nominally pre-political vocations cited in Matthew Kahn's blog (45% law, 14% business, 10% public service, 7% education) is an example of a self-fulfiling prophecy. Why so many lawyers? Because those who aim for public office know that most of the office-holders are lawyers, and thus they decide that becoming lawyers themselves is the best path to public office. Or perhaps I'm being overly cynical. Posted September 13, 2005 12:36 PM
El Presidente writes:
Eddie, Not overly cynical. In fact, you need to put a finer point on it. People who want to be involved in electoral politics are mostly lawyers because they are seeking position that require them to write, execute, and interpret LAWS. That's the whole kit-n-caboodle here. It's not so much a matter of networking or self-selection into a ruling group. It certainly isn't coincidental. There really is a pragmatic point behind that vocational bent. Your point is very well taken regarding the unique nature of political careers. Right on the money. I think you'll be pleased to know that you have a politician among you who really cares about economics. To all: would you rather have an amateur or a professional politician running the show? I bet your answer will be, "Neither, we want an economist." Tough cookies. Teach me the economics you want to see implemented and I'll see what I can do. You need me, so be nice. By the way, if you had a broken pipe in your home would you want an amateur or a professional plumber? That should inform your perspectives on professional office seekers. Posted September 13, 2005 1:41 PM
gary lammert writes:
In the next 140 year cycle, the world may have much better tools East Meets West - World Equities At the Top by Two Different - but Perfect -Weekly Third Fractal Growth Paths (Written 13 September 2005) The weekly count for the third of three sequential major The underperformance of the premiere summation American Index, the Relative to other leading world countries' above listed internal From the Economic Fractalist archive on 28 July 2005: Reverse Growth Fractal Top Patterns - Another Confirmational Indicator of 'At major lower order valuations, top quantum units in individual equities A weekly reverse growth fractal of 15/37/30 weeks or x/2.5x/2x was identified
There are still lower probability possible decay fractal pathways If the AMEX and NYSE characteristic exhaustion gap highs on Gary Lammert Posted September 14, 2005 5:46 PM
Glen Smith writes:
El Presidente, One of the least trustworthy creatures is the professional economist. Posted September 15, 2005 1:20 AM
Glen Smith writes:
El Presidente, One of the least trustworthy creatures is the professional economist. Posted September 15, 2005 1:21 AM
Glen Smith writes:
One of the least trustworthy creatures is the professional economist. Posted September 15, 2005 1:23 AM
Jason Burns writes:
Up here in Canuckistan the opposition party leader is an economist. I voted for him, as I think an understanding of how wealth is created is key for a political leader. Unfortunately the main television channel is ran by the government so they did a big time smear job on him at the last minute. I like what one poster above said, if you want more economists in office you need more economists to run. Its an advantage I belief to have that economist degree next to your name as it puts greater weight behind your statements on how to 'fix' the economy. Posted September 21, 2005 5:37 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||