« A simple theory of where the women are beautiful | Main | Banishment »
A loyal MR reader asks...
What do you think the world would look like if everyone knew as much about Economics as you do?
I imagine many facets of the world would remain the same. For example, demand curves would still slope downward and to the right. But what of politics? Would politics change? Would libertarianism remain a defensible political position? It seems to me that much of what makes libertarianism so desirable is the public choice problem. We're rationally ignorant, and probably somewhat irrational as well. Would a moderate left-leaning position such as Matt Yglesias's suddenly become much more tenable?
With all due respect to myself, I doubt if politics would improve much. To flesh out the scenario a bit, it can't be that everyone is a clone of me. Sex aside, who would fix my computer, leave comments on this blog, or do all the talking at cocktail parties?
Once a reasonable degree of human diversity is introduced, coalitions need to be built. Building coalitions requires politics. That includes compromises, horse-trading, shading the truth, and so on. "Me as politician" is not an especially wonderful vision. If I acted like Tyler the blogger, I would lose power very quickly. Even if I stayed in office. Having some "me's" in the voting booth wouldn't much change this.
We might avoid a few total bonehead policies, if only by shifting the bargaining point. But government wouldn't become much more efficient, at least not as long as coalitions need to be built.
The costs of building coalitions are also a neglected element in the theory of organizations. Even in the private sector, once we consider cohesion and morale, businesses have many fewer degrees of freedom than we might think. That is why merit pay and prediction markets are not as common as an economist might expect. Too often those institutions put people at odds with each other.
So don't even think of voting for me, for Alex, or for whomever you might think of as smart. Vote instead for someone who shares one or two core values with you, and is a good coalition builder. And then make sure that their coalition doesn't violate those core values.
Addendum: Matt Yglesias chips in.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 6, 2006 at 05:59 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
A Cobden and Bright situation? Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, James Madison etc.?
Instead of the apparently mind-bending task of imagining Tyler as one who blabs at cocktail parties and loves "horse trading," why not try imagining a world in which some media stars had become enraptured by Ronald Reagan's vision ... which led to a lot of young politicians, musical artists, news reporters and brilliant academics openly and enthusiastically embracing various positions ranging from traditional Regains to Harry Brownies to David Friedman... and among the throng were plenty who loved to chat at parties and loved to do the horse trading and coalition building necessary.
Such a world would create space for a lot more Sam Waltons, Thomas Edisons, and Melinda Gateses.
Posted by: Dave Meleney at Nov 6, 2006 9:15:34 AM
E-gad,Tyler! Stand up a little for enlightenment!
The counterfactual "know as much econ as Tyler" is a little vague. Does it imply sharing Tyler's moral and ideological judgment, including his pragmatism and tact? I will assume that it does, that, essentially we are positing a world in which the actual Tyler is the median on a intellectual/moral/ideological scale of Tylerishness.
It would be a better world. Suppose Tyler thinks that most government policies are bad on net. Despite whatever Tyler might say here, it is only reasonable to suppose that these would tend be pushed back or even abolished.
Would the workaday administration of government be better? Yes, it would, as in Sweden. But that wouldn't really make government more attractive, because the workaday voluntary coping with "market failures" would also be much better. Suppose Tyler were your naturally monopolistic water provider, highway owner, or operating-system manufacturer. Or your neighbor. Or your factory owner. Or your son, or father, or brother. If he were a businessman, would he lobby the government for handouts and privileges? I think not. I think he would organize against such ill conduct.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Nov 6, 2006 10:30:41 AM
Am I totally off, or is the loyal MR reader off on what public choice theory is? I was unser the impression that it has nothing to do with irrationality, but rather to do with the units of interest --i.e. is the the Minister of Public Welfare making decisions in the interest of public welfare or in the interests of the Minister of Public welfare (and his/her family, etc.) In this sense it has strong parallels in Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene (and for that matter the Extended Phenotype).
Posted by: theCoach at Nov 6, 2006 12:58:00 PM
If a less intellegent person knew as much about economics as Tyler, might they forget their own name or how to tie their shoes?
Posted by: josh at Nov 6, 2006 4:06:06 PM
I think that if people were much smarter on average, the world would be a much better place.
Posted by: Paul N at Nov 6, 2006 8:41:49 PM
For an example of political views inspired by a poor understanding of economics read teh commennts on Matt's blog.
Posted by: jt at Nov 9, 2006 9:50:20 AM
