The poll and journal on which this Wall Street Journal op-ed is based received some attention back when it appeared a month or so ago:
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.
I think the real story is that progressives don’t much care about economics. Their objective is to make the world a better place according to their lights and the realities be damned.
My view is a somewhat more operational one than that. If you genuinely want to make the world a better place, you’d better know and understand the realities. Those cold realities have a way of sticking their heads up and spoiling the best of plans.
This would be more damning if “Econ 101” weren’t a mass of mathematical abstractions, barely and tenuously tethered to reality. Economics doesn’t come close to approaching science.
As I’m constantly harping around here, economics is not mathematics or physics but a science of human behavior and, as such, must be moored to an observation and understanding of human behavior.
That is, perhaps, what it should be. I would argue that that is not, fundamentally, what it is. And that’s definitely not how economics is described in “Econ 101.”
And, I might add, human behavior is, to a certain extent, malleable by culture and institutions, and there are probably far too many factors to form a basis for observation and prediction.
There are a few things I can safely say about economics. One I know for certain is that command and control of a supermajority of the economy by a government does not work. However, this does not mean that nationalized companies always fail, nor does it mean that there are no sectors of the economy that the government can manage. (I would argue, for example, that the facts seem to indicate that governments generally manage healthcare better than the private sector. Barely.)
I also know for certain that, in the absence of government intrusion, free-markets in the industrial context tend to create a situation in which a small portion of wealthy people attempt to keep selling goods to each other that are produced by a majority of workers who are kept as close to poverty and serfdom as possible. (Pre-industrialization, free markets can create a “middle class”–but not after. At least, not empirically.)
I know that some level of regulation and government intervention is needed to create a middle class in an industrial context.
I do not know how economics will work in an information economy context. I am concerned that we’re hanging on to an outdated model of finance and corporatism left over from the Renaissance that is suppressing self-determination and entrepeneurialism. But I’m still gathering facts to support that hypothesis.
Similarly, Libertarians and hard right conservatives tend to idealize away externalities. Maybe safety regulations on the oil industry would slow economic growth, but the beaches are nice and the tourism industry isn’t constantly suffering oil spills – so really on net it’s probably worth it. This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh complaining that one study saying that seafood will be extinct in so many years conflicts with another saying they’ve found hundreds of new species of sea life, mostly worms. I can’t wait to see Rush happily ordering up one of these new worms because there’s no cod left.
whoops the stuff after the” -Jon Chait” is my own, don’t know what I did wrong in the formatting.
And another claim that this poll is junk science:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/are-you-smarter-than-george-mason.html
Rather than agree or disagree, they should have put never, sometimes or always. As phrased, the questions are unenlightened.
If they really wanted to do this right, why not survey the Ph.D. folks? Bet we know why already.
Steve
Alex –
We are still working on that KC acquisition. So I hope we can get together. Primarily because that rant about ” I also know for certain that, in the absence of government intrusion, free-markets in the industrial context tend to create a situation in which a small portion of wealthy people attempt to keep selling goods to each other that are produced by a majority of workers who are kept as close to poverty and serfdom as possible.”…………..made me laugh out loud.
Please, Alex. Its not 1910.
BTW – Jack Stacks was last nights dinner. Good BBQ, but not great. Overhyped?
Drew –
If there’s an industrial context where a middle class emerged absent labor laws, I’d love to see an example. I admit I’ve been doing a lot of reading about the early industrial revolution lately — truck systems, company towns, etc. — so my view might be skewed.
Jack Stack is okay. It’s the hoity toity stuff. Gates, Oklahoma Joes, or BB’s Lawnside BBQ would be better options.
I am inclined to avoid discussions of contentious religious issues like barbecue.
“I am inclined to avoid discussions of contentious religious issues like barbecue.”
Yeah, we own a company in Austin, TX. Don’t get them started on TX vs KC barbeque.
I have to agree – liberals don’t care so much about economics, but about “doing good for society”, whatever that means. They believe you don’t have to pay for programs.
That being said, this study is hopelessly biased. I go into this on: http://realdealecon.blogspot.com/2010/06/liberals-suck-at-economics.html
Cornelius, from your site:
“Marxists, for example, argue that all wage labour is exploitative. ”
I think siting Marxists is an example of not understanding economics.
Tom,
I guess I’d have to concede your point. However, I wonder if conservatives would be able to answer correctly if there had been questions about illegal immigration and the war on drugs in the study.