Monday, January 28, 2013
An assertion
I think this ought to be fairly non-controversial, but I have a feeling it might be: Economists like Russ Roberts have a greater influence on the decisions of Congressional Republicans than economists like Paul Krugman have on Congressional Democrats, when it comes to macroeconomic questions. This is not to say that either have the sort of pull with lawmakers that they'd be satisfied with. In the end, politicians pretty much do their own thing. But a Republican majority would be more likely to make macroeconomic policy Russ could live with than a Demoratic majority would be to make macroeconomic policy that Krugman could live with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
If you have in mind the recent post over at Cafe Hayek on what decides the popularity of economics then this comment is related. He doesn't catch the, admittedly limited, contradiction between the "quote of the day" by Buchanan and his own position on popular economics. Buchanan writes that it's essentially common wisdom that the role of the state is questioned more than the role of markets. But, if this is true then there must be a case that popular economics also, in some ways, fits the worldview held by the very same economists who complain that their worldview isn't popular. I don't mean to make more of a deal than should be made, since I do think that there's an important point to be made that bad economics is often popularized — then again, most economists probably acknowledge this (just not in respect to their own work).
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry - could you say that again differently? I feel like you're making a good point and I'm not quite getting it.
DeleteI agree with your point at the end that most economists think that there's a lot of bad economics out there - and in a lot of cases it's along the lines that Russ complains about (not understanding the logic of market order, for example). My bigger concern on that part is that he thinks that that means "our side" is winning the public, when I think that "our side" is in agreement with Russ about market order and just as disappointed that this is often hard for the public to get. This is not surprising. The general public probably has a disappointing view of most scientific questions.
I didn't realize you had a post that addressed professor Roberts' Cafe Hayek post directly, so I now realize how necessarily tangential my comment is (I could've just posted it in the last thread). I'm saying that it's ironic how he complains that his brand of economics isn't popular, but in one of the earlier posts in CafeHayek Buchanan writes that the biggest Smithian lessons have mostly been internalized by the public: the state is questioned more than markets are.
DeleteAh, yes.
DeleteAnd perhaps my frustration is the source of the irony here. I agree with Buchanan on that that a lot of Smith has been internalized by the public (less the market process type stuff), and if it's internalized by the public its even more internalized by economists. I think their concern is really with "why is Keynes so popular", and their insistence that Keynes is some kind of anti-Smith is why they keep providing such confused and inconsistent answers (IMO at least - you may disagree on that).
I don't think that is actually the case. During years of Congressional dominance by the Republicans they did not make the sorts of choices that I could live with or I suspect Russ could with either.
ReplyDeleteRight, I think the ascendancy of this sort of thinking on both sides is largely a post-recession phenomenon. The guiding light before then was more neoconservative and less concerned with economic questions in general. But today I think this is clearly true - but by this all I mean is that the Republicans are guided 15% by Russ type thinking and Democrats are guided 5% by Krugman type thinking. The percentages on other issues - like health care - are much higher (ie - much more consistency between Russ and Congressional Rs and Krugman and Congressional Ds), but on macro issues it's not like policy is being guided by economics and to the extent it is, I don't think the Keynesians have the upper hand.
DeleteWell, Republicans aren't the majority party, so they can be somewhat more consistent because their lines are shorter (there are fewer of them and they are more alike than if they were the majority party) and because they have to define themselves against the majority party in some fashion or another. So if there is any recent truth to what you're getting at it will evaporate as soon as the Republicans get the WH or both houses of Congress under their belt.
DeleteI think I agree with "The Libertarian ..." - sort of. Telling Republicans what they want to hear and giving them cover for what they want to do is not having influence on them. Influence means taking them someplace they would not have gone without you. By that measure, Krugman may have a lot of influence - not in moving the Democrats completely to his position but in moving them partway there, or at least keeping them from moving too far to the right.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem for the economists who want to move the Republicans to the right on economic issues is that it would be political suicide for the Republicans to actually openly adopt those policies. That is why we get the Republicans talking in circles and resorting to procedural stratagems. If they came out and forthrightly announced that their platform would involve substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security they would be annihilated at the next election.
Absalon,
DeleteI was going to go with "The Libertarian Avenger" - but that sounded like I would type at a keyboard with tights and cape on so I went against it. ;)