Economists, unheard.

[Der-Lowe]

The US economic policy debate has been marked by a strong division in people's opinions. What is remarkable about this process is that such a division is not reflected in the specialist's discussion of the same topics. A survey taken by the Chicago Booth's School of Business revealed the following consensus:

1. Obama's stimulus helped reduce unemployment: 92%
2. Bush's bank bail outs reduced the jobless rate: 100%
3. Tax-cuts will not raise revenues: 100%
4. Imposing a gold standard would not improve price stability and employment: 100%

Why such a divergence? Quoting from the NY times:

"Partly itâEUTMs a colossal, bipartisan lack of the political courage required to tell people what they sort of know but donâEUTMt want to hear. Partly itâEUTMs a Republican Party that, for its own cynical reasons, wants no deal with this president. Partly itâEUTMs moneyed, focused lobbies that swarm in defense of specific advantages written into the law; there is no comparable lobby for compromise, let alone sacrifice."

Original source where I got all this from: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/07/25/the-secret-consensus-

among-economists/

[Feoric]

What exactly do you want us to discuss here?

[Warforger]

At 8/2/12 04:21 AM, Feoric wrote: What exactly do you want us to discuss here?

Obviously the fact that economists are ignored when it comes to matters of economics. I mean you can already tell, all you have to do is talk to Sadistic Monkey or other hardcore libertarians on here and you will certainly see their determination to ignore professional economists because they might contradict their hardened Libertarian opinions (and their constant accusations of stupidity on the all things left wing). The bailout and stimulus's are often hailed as failures despite such support from economists.

I mean we can already tell just from Global Warming how willing Right Wing politicians are to try to admit that they might be wrong, hell they're even trying to ban scientists from being able to say things are getting worse.

The core problem though is that many people take up opposing viewpoints just for the sake of it, they come up with a huge argument then defeat people who take the mainstream route but aren't experts and use it as vindication that they're correct. God forbid they actually find a scientist who would prove them wrong or in this case an economist.

[CaptainPrichard]

Economics is amoral, because science is amoral and economics is a social/ soft science.

[Feoric]

At 8/2/12 05:05 PM, Warforger wrote: Obviously the fact that economists are ignored when it comes to matters of economics. I mean you can already tell, all you have to do is talk to Sadistic Monkey or other hardcore libertarians on here and you will certainly see their determination to ignore professional economists because they might contradict their hardened Libertarian opinions (and their constant accusations of stupidity on the all things left wing). The bailout and stimulus's are often hailed as failures despite such support from economists.

Yes but the libertarians on this forum/anywhere in the world use libertarian economists as sources, basically anyone that subscribe to the Austrian school of economics. When they see this article it's extremely easy for them to just shoot it down as Keynesian propaganda, and they'll then direct you to another poll conducted by a libertarian think tank which polls economists that unilaterally disagree with the economists discussed in the NYT article. So the real issue here isn't economists, it's economic theory. That's where the real discussion should be started.

[Warforger]

At 8/3/12 05:59 AM, Feoric wrote: Yes but the libertarians on this forum/anywhere in the world use libertarian economists as sources, basically anyone that subscribe to the Austrian school of economics. When they see this article it's extremely easy for them to just shoot it down as Keynesian propaganda, and they'll then direct you to another poll conducted by a libertarian think tank which polls economists that unilaterally disagree with the economists discussed in the NYT article. So the real issue here isn't economists, it's economic theory. That's where the real discussion should be started.

Then that would make them stupid and wrong because these think tanks are the bulk of the economists right and left wing. Of course there are always a few fringe economists just like there are a few fringe scientists, the thing though is that they tend to act the same "Oh you won't debate Creationism with me? Well obviously Evolution is wrong" and as the NYTimes article points out in the age of modern media saying something controversial and different is how you get attention hence Libertarian economists. The main problem is the difference of popular economic beliefs to professional economic beliefs, which is the main problem here.

I think this pretty much serves as the whole state of dillusion many people have brought themselves into, they keep trying to look at America as a perfect nation that is being ruined by liberals rather than a nation that has many problems and is falling behind because apparently that makes them feel bad i.e. American exceptionalism. Therefore they will go to any length to deny anything which contradicts them even if it is done by people who know what they're talking about.