« Get politically uninvolved! | Main | Rappers on *The Economist* magazine »
Fragments of wisdom
Yet economists talk much more about trade than they do about health care policy, because they think they know something about it in a way the laity don’t...don’t let economist’s tendency to overemphasize their areas of expertise distort your view.
I don't agree with every claim in this Krugman piece, least of all his defense of you-know-who, but I think that psychoanalysis of economists is spot on.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 6, 2008 at 09:30 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Wow, Tyler is comparing Hillary to Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series. I didn't know she was THAT evil!
Posted by: Craig at May 6, 2008 9:48:23 AM
"don’t let economist’s tendency to overemphasize their areas of expertise distort your view"
oh. so *that's* why Paul Krugman spends most of his time writing about things he knows nothing about!
Posted by: Chris at May 6, 2008 10:06:44 AM
I thought it wasn't so much that this gas tax holiday is terrible, but that Clinton probably understands tax incidence (or at the very least, somebody who works for her does) and this shows her to be extremely willing to openly mislead the American people. Why are we so willing to ignore the fact that so office of President involves a sacred trust and ought to be a privilege? We seriously can't do better than this?
Posted by: josh at May 6, 2008 10:06:46 AM
don’t let economist’s tendency to overemphasize their areas of expertise distort your view.
But surely this is better than the other tendency, remarked upon by Professor Krugman in another column (the one about rent control, I believe), of journalists wanting economists to comment most precisely on issues where economists are divided and the issue is unclear (making for a nice he said/she said) as opposed to things like the gas tax holiday or rent control where economists are more or less united.
Posted by: John Thacker at May 6, 2008 12:07:45 PM
Economists are good at resource and allocation questions. Ignore the science of their field and somebody starves to death. If one describes economists as more often exhibiting some psychological pattern, one is not speaking scientifically as an economist.
Economists are human, and subject to the whole range of biases and arrogance. In this sense, Krugman is perhaps superhuman.
Posted by: Mark Fox at May 6, 2008 12:08:08 PM
Krugman's doesn't like it that Hillary is being skewered by economists over the gas tax, hence, the article that economists are being hysterical.
Economists are not hysterical over the gas tax. They see it as a teaching moment and want to do what economists do best (or at least what they do often) and, that is, teach. Here is an opportunity to teach about the incidence of taxation and so they write about it. How many economists have a textbook solution for healthcare? How many economists would agree on the "solution" for healthcare? Ask yourself, how much disagreement is there about the incidence of taxation?
Krugman also says that economists are making this out to be the most important issue ever. Have you heard ANY economist say or imply that the gas tax is the most important issue ever? Of course they have not. It is a teaching moment that hopefully can be used to educate the public. It is nothing more than that.
Krugman says that trade barriers are a minor issue today. Well, maybe because economists have done a reasonably good job educating the public on the benefits of free trade. I think it is Krugman who is being a hysterical (and using a lot of hyperbole) in his article.
Posted by: Tom at May 6, 2008 12:16:16 PM
So, don't talk about what you don't know about, and don't talk about what you do know about.
Sounds like good advice for a few unnamed economists-turned-pundit.
Posted by: Bartman at May 6, 2008 1:09:44 PM
I think most of the commenters hate Krugman becasue he was so right for the last 8 years about what a disaster the Bush presidency would be. I'm not sure whether his post shows Tyler is a right wing demagogue, but the comments certainly show he serves that function to his readers.
Posted by: MostlyAPragmatist at May 6, 2008 1:31:44 PM
I think Josh has touched on the reason why Hillary's support of the gas tax holiday leads to freaking out by so many economists and economically literate non-economists.
Virtually everyone who understands tax incidence analysis thinks the tax holiday is a lousy idea, regardless of their political beliefs. It's been skewered by every economist I have seen discuss it, ranging from the very liberal to the very conservative and everyone in between (except Bryan Caplan, who admitted it was bad but still defended it on the grounds that the alternatives might be worse). The rejection of the gas tax holiday is about as close as social science ever gets to unanimous agreement. If you're going to listen to economists on any topic, then presumably this is a topic where you might pay attention because of the strength of the consensus.
But Clinton doesn't seem to care.
That suggests a disconcerting willingness to ignore expert opinion when it is politically unpalatable. That's not a quality that most economists (or most educated people) want in a president.
I think the freaking out stems less from the harmfulness of the idea and more from her emphatic rejection of the professional consensus.
Posted by: Jebs at May 6, 2008 1:59:04 PM
It's not clear that health care is more important than trade issues, if you look at the global picture. If the U.S. begins a slide to protectionism it may (or may not) induce other countries to do the same. Maybe economists are biased toward what matters more for 6.6 billion people than 300 million.
Posted by: PJ at May 6, 2008 3:53:31 PM
Maybe economists are biased toward what matters more for 6.6 billion people than 300 million.
So they are, in effect, paid and unpaid agents of foreign peoples.
And we should listen to their opinions, why?
Posted by: mik at May 6, 2008 4:46:20 PM
Define "foreign", mik.
Posted by: bartman at May 6, 2008 11:12:45 PM
