« The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Main | Today's good news? »
If Ezra Klein were Tyler Cowen
A very good post. On the specifics: relative to most libertarian economists, I am more likely to think -- or should I say admit -- that human beings are irrational, even when the stakes are high (see the self-deception chapter in Discover Your Inner Economist). But, relative to social democrats, I tend to think that politicians are irrational actors trying to pander to irrational voters and that it can't be any other way. I am much less optimistic about democracy as an instrument for fine-tuning good policy or for that matter as a medium for enforcing progressive sentiments. On health care I don't think the solution is to strip away insurance, a'la HSAs, so I agree with Ezra's paragraph more than not. On The Wire, the defect is fully mine. I've watched seven or eight episodes, from seasons one and three, and I thought: this is fantastic. But I never really looked forward to the next episode and eventually I stopped watching. I have an inability to appreciate all things gritty, regardless of medium. I don't enjoy Grapes of Wrath either, or for that matter Goodfellas. I wonder if needing a tinge of romanticism isn't some kind of character weakness of mine.
Addendum: Kevin Drum comments on the last round.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 21, 2008 at 08:33 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I'll add this and Mr. Klein should consider this when yapping about economic issues:
Relative to Ezra Klein and other Social Democrats, Tyler Cowen is far more likely to make sense and be on the right side of an economic policy matter.
Posted by: JVC at Jan 21, 2008 8:58:39 PM
"Needing a tinge of romanticism" makes Cowen a dismal scientist.
chsw
Posted by: chsw at Jan 21, 2008 9:24:25 PM
"Tyler Cowen is far more likely to make sense and be on the right side of an economic policy matter."
Yay for romanticism! There's a revealing truth in this commenter's quote...
Not that I mind.
Emphasis on the dysfunction inherent in the political process, has Tyler ever worked for a private firm? I have, small, medium, and very large, and in government labs, and excelled at all. Galbraith Sr. was not wrong... the smartest people in the bomb labs are just as smart as the smartest people at google.
Now if you could just extinguish some of those government functions that live too long. Like NASA, for instance. But not NOAA.
This is the problem with government. I wish to believe that it is solvable. After listening to several MLK speeches on KFJC tonight, I think it possible.
Posted by: Russell L. Carter at Jan 21, 2008 10:25:05 PM
Interestingly, I had a very similar argument very recently with someone who believed that humans beings are much less rational than economists and libertarians believe. I'd have to disagree by saying that human beings always attempt to maximize their utility thereby acting in their own self-interest, which, in turn, means that they are in fact rational actors. Of course, the question then becomes what it is that maximizes an individual's utility - some people justify acts that may seem totally bizarre to the outside world - and that is where most social democrats think they should take the reins. For economists and libertarians, on the other hand, the solution is to tinker with the incentives.
Posted by: axel molotov at Jan 21, 2008 10:37:45 PM
"I wonder if needing a tinge of romanticism isn't some kind of character weakness of mine."
Have you read, and did you really dislike Annie Proulx's "Wyoming Tales"? That book still depresses me when I think about it!
Posted by: Tom Davies at Jan 21, 2008 11:34:22 PM
"But, relative to social democrats, I tend to think that politicians are irrational actors trying to pander to irrational voters and that it can't be any other way."
Bravo! That is the essence of it. In praise of certainty!
But it's not just about a static irrationality. The next question is, when irrationality occurs and mistakes are made, are the people who have to deal with competition and immediate accountability more or less likely to correct their irrationalities than people who don't have competition and whose accountability is muted by the election cycle and the political system.
Simple example. If Bush completely mucks up his first four years, I can't just fire Bush, or replace Bush, or get a better one. I have to wait for the election, and then my choice is between Bush and Kerry. And it's not even really a choice I get to make, because I'd have to convince 200 million of my closest friends. Is it more or less likely for you to have a better choice available in politics or in the private sector? Is it more or less likely for Bush to correct his irrationalities if he is a President or if he is a CEO?
Democracy is better than monarchy, but it can only ever approach a market system, never equal or surpass it.
And by the way...
"the smartest people in the bomb labs are just as smart as the smartest people at google."
I consider this a problem.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 22, 2008 4:17:01 AM
Further bravo to Tyler for engaging with these folks.
Rationally, we are more likely to achieve "peace" by talking to eachother.
But at this point, after struggling to gird myself so that I can protect my family and my voluntary associations and institutions, as well as make a positive contribution to socieity, I pretty much resent someone telling me how I have to do even more to protect someone I would choose not to, because it's better for the "whole."
I'm more likely to tell them "Go fund yourself."
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 22, 2008 4:27:46 AM
Axel Molotov, I am not sure if a preference for tinkering through incentives is particularly libertarian. It is more typical of economists in general, including social democratic economists.
Libertarians may prefer tinkering through incentives over tinkering through regulation, but is the core difference not that libertarians are very reluctant about any form of tinkering at all?
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Jan 22, 2008 4:31:12 AM
Klein says:
"But it is, at base, a disagreement over the likely behavior of humans, and how we should respond to it. The Cato employees of the world -- Tyler is not one, incidentally -- simply have a much more optimistic take on the individual's mastery over his sphere. We are, with a bit of an assist from price signals, doctors, stockbrokers, bond traders, pension planners, and much else. I on the other hand, see more in the way of frailty and shortcomings, and am instead deeply optimistic that our self-knowledge of those vulnerabilities allow us to stand together and protect each other against not only the vicissitudes of a dangerous world, but occasionally, against ourselves."
No, no, no! The alternatives are not either:
A) Be your own doctor, stock-broker, bond-trader, and pension planner, or
B) Have a social democratic government decide to handle all those decisions and provide all those services for you (whether you like it or not).
I am not my own doctor. But nor am I my own plumber or auto-mechanic. Yes, people often benefit from expert advice and assistance. But, no, people don't need the government to tell them when they must seek it out. And they *really* don't need the government to impose itself as the monopolistic supplier expertise and assistance.
Posted by: Slocum at Jan 22, 2008 9:43:03 AM
GZ - As I see it, libertarians are against any type of coercion (although there are others who are not, they adhere to a utilitarian ideology). I guess the force distinction is what I would use to mainly distinguish between libertarians and social democrats.
But you may be right. However, it's probably worthwhile to add that much like with anything else, there are different degrees of libertarianism. So where you might believe that complete freedom of choice is unequivocal, I might think that a certain degree of tinkering is allowed; both of us may call ourselves libertarians nonetheless.
Posted by: axel molotov at Jan 22, 2008 10:51:59 AM
I understand the craving for romanticism, but I'm still able to love The Wire and Goodfellas because I try to focus on the question, "How good is this TV show/movie at accomplishing what it set out to do?" To me, they both excel.
Posted by: Christina at Jan 22, 2008 11:02:26 AM
Christina said: "I try to focus on the question, "How good is this TV show/movie at accomplishing what it set out to do?""
I focus on whether it's doing what I want, rather than what the writer wants. If someone is trying to make you depressed, do you want to submit to it and admire their skill, or would you rather leave and do something which makes you happy?
Posted by: CDeBoe at Jan 22, 2008 3:31:02 PM
In his Nobel prize lecture (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf) Kahneman talks about two modes of thought - System 1 (intuition) and System 2 (rationality) - to explain how errors in judgement occur and how we correct for those errors. System 1 intuition is fast, parallel, automatic, effortless and associative, while System 2 reasoning is slow, serial, controlled, effortful, and rule governed. Further, System 1 intuition is slow-learning, while System 2 reasoning is flexible.
Perhaps society as a whole is like an individual trying to cope with uncertainty relying on System 1 and System 2 like processes. We need both System 1 (individual decision-making) and System 2 (collective decision-making).
Posted by: KY Choong at Jan 22, 2008 7:36:43 PM
"politicians are irrational actors trying to pander to irrational voters"
I think it's more useful to think of politicians as rational, i.e., cynical, than irrational.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Jan 23, 2008 5:33:39 PM
I wonder if there's a relationship between interest in / tolerance for "gritty" narratives and the political viewpoints of an audience; might narrative grittiness add a human face to certain negative externalities of the free market?
Posted by: Dave M at Jan 28, 2008 3:34:28 PM
提供钢管无缝钢管数据恢复心理咨询心理辅导与心理治疗bjxlzx.cn等服务
Posted by: baom at Feb 9, 2008 1:28:58 AM
