Comments on: Pete Boettke on Ideology and Economics

By: Harun

Harun — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 04:07:20 +0000

“Everyone understands that the political process is a mess.”

I like gridlock. Its working as advertised. Do nothing is better than Doi Something! most of the time.

By: Harun

Harun — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 04:04:15 +0000

“so one feels free to omit the only important step, which is showing that the course of action one proposes will likely have better results.”

The problem is that reducing government is rarely tried. Every crisis leads to more government, even if the evidence was clear that the government didn’t stop the crisis from happening, so maybe its not good to double down.

By: Greg G

Greg G — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:39:19 +0000

You misunderstand my point. I am not claiming that Krugman is some exception to “the Law of Asymmetric Insight.” He most definitely is NOT an exception to it.

I AM pointing out that Arnold goes immediately from stating that this law applies to each side to saying that it really applies primarily to only one side. This is actually a hilariously unintended case of the law at work.

I think that Bottke is right to say that mainstream economics is not dominated by market fundamentalism. Arnold goes directly from citing a “law” that applies to each side in a debate to saying this “We understand asymmetric information.” If that’s true then the “law” is wrong. You can’t have it both ways.

Neither Krugman nor anyone else expects the things they don’t expect. BOTH SIDES do understand that their attempts to institute the policies they prefer will be mangled in the political process with unpredictable results. They both complain about that endlessly. It is hardly unnoticed. Each side continues to advocate for the policies they think are best anyway because they believe that something closer to what they think is optimal will work better than something farther from it.

By: Andrew'

Andrew' — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:29:41 +0000

But seriously, I suppose we’d need fMRI to determine the real winner of the ideological Turing test, but until then my money is on Arnold et. al.

Certainly, even if half of what Krugman writes is what you say (and I doubt it), it is certainly not what Arnold is referring to. Can you point to examples of Krugman discussing unintended consequences of his desired government policies? Is it half his writing?

By: Andrew'

Andrew' — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:22:41 +0000

On the other hand, Obama has started to assume away the challenges of the political process…

By: triclops

triclops — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:16:56 +0000

Yes, he complains that the process isn’t a platonic ideal, then makes policy prescriptions as if it were.
The Left’s complaints about the political process are very narrow; things would work fine if only the Right would stop disagreeing with them. That to me, reinforces that they are unable to appreciate what Kling points out.

By: djf

djf — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:10:22 +0000

Yes, Krugman complains that the politicians won’t get out of the way and let the credentialed bureaucrats make all important policy decisions. No assumptions or blinders there.

By: Greg G

Greg G — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:36:34 +0000

>—“The mainstream approach simply assumes away all weaknesses of the political process.”

THIS is a demonstration of how you understand your opponent’s position better than he understands yours? The irony here is breathtaking.

Everyone understands that the political process is a mess. Yes, they all blame the other guy but who are these people who think the political process has no weaknesses? Half of what Krugman writes is complaints about the political process.

By: Andrew'

Andrew' — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 11:32:01 +0000

I tend to think the left bias derives from institutional incentives. First they have to win grants. That means they have to convince someone of the importance of their investigation. It is easier if your problem is bigger. Second, they have to fill papers. This is more convenient with math and aggregates fit the bill for both of the first two foundational requirements.

I see it as similar to NPR’s problem. Nation-scale “focus” almost assures a centralization bias. Nothing more is required. Positive feedbacks handle the rest.

The odd part is that they don’t see the problem. I do. A businessman would pUT counter balances in place. So the academia market must be in failure.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:42:58 +0000

As the old saying goes, behind every apparent double standard is a rigorously enforced unspoken single standard.

Mainstream economists believe that the masses suffer from market failure, asymmetric information issues, etc.

They also believe that they, the educated elite, do not suffer from these problems, and should rule. It’s the same reason why they may talk about being the party of the poor, but they would never be willing to legislate for the opinions of the poor when it comes to gay marriage.