Economics has met the enemy, and it is economics

[Dauphin]

No. Over the extremely long term (I said ~100 years) you can't observe a huge divergence in those inflation rates.



No. Climate scientists as a group have had little success getting their preferred policies implemented, compared to how much success they think they need. This is despite the fact that climate science should be far better at proving strong empirical claims than economics; the reason is because voters and politicians are only weakly influenced by experts.

The conclusion is that economists don't deserve too much blame for not exercising their power to influence public policy, because they don't have much power in the first place.

edit: if by 'credence on' you actually meant 'relevance to', then answer is pretty much yes, at least according to the consensus of climate scientists.



The gains in free trade have come after literally centuries of concerted lobbying.

And since the study of economics started, we have seen far more state-run schools, far more corporate taxes, and far more welfare than before.



Um, you believe that mathematics is subjective, in the 2+2=5 sense?

Re maths. I think he means some people find it difficult, others easy.

[Kuciwalker]

What could possibly motivate me, or anyone, to disagree with that?

[DaShi]

Money?

[Fake Boris]

My thesis is perfectly consistent, Kuci.

I am saying that economists defend ideas that are internally consistent, but empirically suggestive.

That there is more welfare is only a sign that we have more wealth, not that economists aren't influential. Elections are lost and won on the economy; stock market fluctuations make headlines; and political discourse in general is totally permeable to economical lexicon.

Welfare is a post-depression accident; orthodox economics dominated discourse in the 19th century, is dominating it today, and will dominate it in the 21st century.

When you assert that it took centuries of lobbying for free trade to happen, you are forgetting that free trade was a major justification for colonialism.

[Kuciwalker]

My thesis is perfectly consistent, Kuci.

Your thesis isn't coherent let alone consistent.

I am saying that economists defend ideas that are internally consistent, but empirically suggestive.

Empirically suggestive of what?

That there is more welfare is only a sign that we have more wealth, not that economists aren't influential.

You are attacking an argument that was never made. My argument, repeated over and over because you can't seem to understand the words let alone the ideas, is this:

1. Economists have been lobbying for free trade (especially, against tariffs) for a long, long time. Literally centuries. They have been almost perfectly unified in this task.

2. They have made only small or moderate progress in this goal.

3. Therefore, it appears that groups other than economists have vastly more influence over policy outcomes.

4. Therefore your assertion earlier that economists aren't using their influence enough to explain certain (unspecified by you) nuances of their research to politicians is laughable.

Elections are lost and won on the economy; stock market fluctuations make headlines; and political discourse in general is totally permeable to economical lexicon.

That the economy is important doesn't imply that the people who study it actually have influence.

Welfare is a post-depression accident; orthodox economics dominated discourse in the 19th century, is dominating it today, and will dominate it in the 21st century.

Orthodox economics supports welfare.

You really have no idea what you're even criticizing!

When you assert that it took centuries of lobbying for free trade to happen, you are forgetting that free trade was a major justification for colonialism.

This is just openly false and calls into question whether you know anything about economics OR history. European colonialism was mercantilist, it was precisely the policy regime free trade opposes. Adam Smith devoted large portions of The Wealth of Nations (something like 1/3 of the entire book) to criticizing it.

[Elok]

While I don't know much about this argument in general, I read somewhere (the last volume of Larry Gonick's Cartoon History, I think) that Europeans used free trade arguments to discourage African rulers from imposing tariffs--or from doing anything to hinder European trade interests in their countries--during the 1800s. That may be what OB's referring to. Though I recall that source also noted that Europeans tended to impose tariffs out the wazoo themselves...

[Hauldren Collider]

Mercantilism was still in vogue (hell, you could argue that it is in vogue today) during the 1800s.

[Fake Boris]

Kuci, why don't you open a newspaper, read about what economists are saying on the opinion page, and compare to Western politics in the past 20 years?

I don't know what you mean by orthodox economics, but you know what I mean. I am talking about the idea, for instance, that worker associations trump on the sacred right to property, for instance.

[Fake Boris]

Your thesis isn't coherent let alone consistent.
4. Therefore your assertion earlier that economists aren't using their influence enough to explain certain (unspecified by you) nuances of their research to politicians is laughable.

Yeah, like those nuances you are refusing to make in this thread? Like, maybe, that inflation could be a meaningless figure when you compare Bill Gates and a nurse?

(This is not even considering that it would follow from wrongly distributed efficiency gains, that capital owners do not truly face inflation, because the benefits are absorbed in the value of capital).

This is just openly false and calls into question whether you know anything about economics OR history. European colonialism was mercantilist, it was precisely the policy regime free trade opposes. Adam Smith devoted large portions of The Wealth of Nations (something like 1/3 of the entire book) to criticizing it.

Early colonialism was mercantilist, later colonialism was about building by force a network of free trade. This also offered a convenient casus belli: "We are bringing them the benefits of civilization and free trade."

[Felch]

That's not true.

[Felch]

How does one go about forcing a network of free trade? It's an inverse tautology.

[giblets]

How does one go about forcing a network of free trade? It's an inverse tautology.

Well, you could send gunboats to another country, say Japan, and demand that they accept foreign trade or else you will open fire.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well, you could send gunboats to another country, say Japan, and demand that they accept foreign trade or else you will open fire.

I assume you are referring to Commodore Perry

[Felch]

Neither the US nor Japan was engaging in free trade. They were both protectionist states during the 19th century. The Meiji rulers consciously emulated Prussian style state-capitalism, and the United States maintained high tariffs in order to protect its industries from European competition.

Try again.

[giblets]

Neither the US nor Japan was engaging in free trade. They were both protectionist states during the 19th century. The Meiji rulers consciously emulated Prussian style state-capitalism, and the United States maintained high tariffs in order to protect its industries from European competition.

Try again.

Don't be an idiot. The treaty that Japan signed at gunpoint reduced legal restrictions on imports and exports, meaning it increased freedom of trade. Try harder next time.