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 (3 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/712
The author at Tim Worstall in a related article titled The Myth of the Rational Voter writes:
COMMENTS (5 to date)
Steve Sailer writes:
A perhaps more important question is what are the systematic weaknesses of economists? As we saw when elite American economists were given a chance to play a major role in Russia in the 1990s and ended up contributing to one of the worst human catastrophes of our generation, the myth of the rational economist is one that desperately needs debunking. Posted May 27, 2007 1:43 AM
Steve Sailer writes:
Research into the myth of the rational economist could well begin with Bryan's recent post "Borjas: What's His Problem," which is a locus classicus of economist's notorious shortcomings: laziness, moralism, and egotism. Posted May 27, 2007 1:53 AM
dearieme writes:
The problem lies in the word "expert". I might be viewed as having been an expert in two areas. In one, I was rather like an economist: I read and thought, calculated and predicted. But in the other, I really was an expert: controlled experiments could soon prove me wrong or leave me vindicated. It's quite a difference. Posted May 27, 2007 6:19 AM
calmo writes:
I can see this "granting" business has worked somewhat in lubricating this somewhat incestuous exercise of reviewing one's own work. As Hayes properly notes, I only grant economists (and other experts) the presumption of being right about their subject. And since I grant economists that presumption, the burden is on me, the dissenter, to rebut the case for the rational voter model. Hence, the book! Well, I feel the same privileges should bestown (not be stoned, you blind people) upon this here post...although I could be persuaded to accept a lesser position (smaller stones, incapacitated throwers...) at the outset...such a steep curve learner and promising, but still, (so sadly,) non-expert I B. Let me confess my ignorance and total exposure to the charm of this figure, Ouroboros...that figure that illustrates for some experts (possibly not the consensus which might possibly be corrected... with efforts valiant enough...) the self destruction that comes from a mix of fatail narcissism, starvation and braindeadedness. [aka orthodoxy] Posted May 28, 2007 11:14 PM
C L writes:
I think the reviewer means that you rely on economists' consensus to determine how public opinion is irrational. You define diverging from economists' consensus as irrational. Then, you also say that economists' consensus is wrong in that the consensus supports the view that public opinion is rational. But you already set up the presupposition that diverging from economists' consensus is irrational, so in expressing a viewpoint that diverges from that consensus, you yourself are being irrational, right? Making this claim requires such convoluted language, I won't be surprised if it's not at all clear. Posted May 29, 2007 1:59 PM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||