Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[DanS]

Why not just educate the public about what is good for them? No change of constitution required.

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe we could have a dual legislature; the regular one we have now, and the economist dictatorship I suggested. If the econ-nerds can meet the supermajority threshold I established then their judgment wins...

[KrazyHorse]

Why not just educate the public about what is good for them? No change of constitution required.

Getting even relatively intelligent people to grasp this:

There are things in this world which are the result of human action, but not human intention.

and understand its consequences in a deep way involves a great deal of commitment on their part, and a willingness to abandon a worldview which comes naturally to the rational-minded.

[Az]

Industrial engineers are the WORST IMAGINABLE group to allow into political power.

Modern economies are NOT one big factory. Trying to make them behave like they are is precisely what distinguishes command&control economies from market economies, and is precisely what causes command&control economies to dramatically underperform market economies.

This is fallacious thinking:

a)Modern Industrial Engineers are well-versed in economics, know to outsource properly when needed, and integrate activity when needed.
b)Are without the doubt the best in streamlining activity - remember, they also have the government to run.
c)have a far softer touch with regards to people than any engineer, while still be able to model things as good as any engineer ( in my experience).
d)are multidisciplinary and much less dogmatic then economists.

As far as behavioral economists, they are the first step along the slippery slope of deciding that government knows better than individuals what is good for the individuals. Many or most of their current suggestions are relatively benign, but their influence is certainly something to be concerned about, in my opinion.

There is nothing concerning about trying to leave the empty premises of simplistic economic models.


Truth being told, Economists are just terrible at running things. And unless you demand a laissez-faire libertarian approach, the government needs to be run. I think there is also some sort of bias in that matter in economic research: most hardcore economist types I have known were terrible at running things - all the good ones went and became managers.

[KrazyHorse]

This is fallacious thinking:

a)Modern Industrial Engineers are well-versed in economics, know to outsource properly when needed, and integrate activity when needed.

Good ****ing God, you missed the point completely.

The industrial engineer knows that he wants to produce widget X most cheaply. He designs an industrial process that takes inputs from various places and outputs the widgets. He may well outsource a given process, of course. He may not attempt, as Ford reputedly did, to even own the sand the windshields are made of and the iron mine the steel frames are made of.

HOWEVER, and this is the key point, HE IS STILL AN ENGINEER TASKED WITH MAKING WIDGET X.

If he is told that carbon emissions cause damage, what will he do? He might decide that private contractors can design better green fuels than government researchers can, and that private car manufacturers can design better engines than government engineers can, but the economic solution is for him to plan NOTHING. NOT how much reduction should come from green fuels. NOT how much should come from increased public transportation. NOT how much should come from more efficient car engines. Perhaps NOT EVEN how much carbon emissions should be reduced by overall.

An engineer solves problems. An economist lets other people solve problems.

An industrial engineer is the WORST POSSIBLE person in government. The economy would be his factory.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, any model of the government in which they necessarily "run things" is fundamentally flawed...

Also, your simple-minded suggestion that economists are "dogmatic" is ****ing retarded. Take a look through the ****ing survey I linked to. The only things economists are "dogmatic" about are those where there is an overwhelming pile of evidence to support the dogmatism.

[DanS]

Logisticians should have a strong influence in the military. That's as close as engineers should get to running the show.

One thing that I should caution you about: economists are extremely cautious by personal habit.

[GePap]

Of course, not all politics regards economics.

All economic outcomes are political. This is why KH's idea is not only never going to happen, but even if it did happen, would fall apart. Most "government intrusion" into economics is it choosing winners, usually at the behest of the private parties that want to win.

One person's "genius solution" likely involves someone else loosing something they already have. Why should that person just sit back and take the loss, simply to satisfy some theorem? Not going to happen.

[GePap]

That's because you have a ridiculous predilection for government intervention and the restriction of consumer choice.

So in your world view, individuals as economic actors are always rational, and thus should be allowed to act with as few restrictions as possible, and this will (based on faith) lead to a generally positive emergent order. On the other hand, individuals as citizens are obviously irrational, as they don't chose policies that allow themselves and others as economic actors be to free. Therefore, we must remove political choice from their hands and place it in the hands of better knowing economist, who can centrally plan a much more rational politico-economic order....

okie-dokie....

[Kuciwalker]

So in your world view, individuals as economic actors are always rational

Learn to read.

[Kuciwalker]

The premise is that I know what I want more than you know what I want.

[Solomwi]

Not to mention that I'm more likely to make a rational decision when I bear its costs or reap its rewards than I am when you do.

[Dauphin]

The premise is that I know what I want more than you know what I want.

Your problem is that you just don't know what is good for you.

[Al B. Sure!]

'Nuff said. That is the entirety of the argument against letting people do whatever the hell they want or that individuals know best about what's good for them. People are ****ing stupid and behave like children.

[C0ckney]

if that's the entirety of your argument then you've lost the argument.