NationStates Jolt Archive

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/05/menendez-thank.html
Menendez: "Thank God" Economists Don't Make Public Policy

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is a coauthor with Clinton on the gas tax bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9OCmHKiSI


To me, the claims being made about this proposal are the same as saying tax cuts pay for themselves. Even if it has popular appeal, even if it wins votes and elections, economists are in wide agreement in saying that the proposal is misleading as stated by the campaign, and generally a bad idea. When literally all the experts around you are telling you that what you are saying is misleading (at best), yet you declare you are going to say it anyway, that’s no better than the Laffer curve stuff. Sure, it’s not much money, but what if this were attacking Iran instead and she declared she was just going to do it anyway? That’s a bigger deal, and refusing to listen to experts - dismissing them as out of touch and elitist - tells us something important.

I have refused, for the most part, to get into Dem vs. Dem issues, and I’ve focused on McCain, but the statement she made irked me. Economics has been undermined enough, and part of it has come from people at think tanks and elsewhere who aren't economists, but pretend to be, promoting ideas like tax cuts are self-financing in op-eds, TV appearances, the NRO, and elsewhere. It has confused people, the media turns it into a he said-she said issue rather than denouncing the falsehoods and misleading statements, and people are left confused and wondering if economists know what they are talking about. When Republicans do this, it ticks me off. Economics has been undermined enough by clowns pretending to be economists, and I won’t help our side undermine the profession even further.

If they want to do public policy without talking to economists, good luck with that. I'm tired of being told I don't understand how average Americans feel. The point here is that this is a lousy way to help people. It's not that we don't care, or don't understand, it's that we do care and understand all to well and we'd like to see policies put into place that actually have a chance to help people. Promising things that aren't likely to happen - telling people they will get relief when it will likely be a pittance (the $70 figure they cite is not supported by the underlying economics) - simply leads to disappointment and disenchantment with politicians. All we are asking is that promises have a chance to be realized. Let's help the people who need help, but let's do it in a way that is effective rather than in a way that plays off their difficulties and fears, but does not really address their needs.

Now, first of all, let's not make this a "Who should be President?"-topic, we already have some of those.

I'm more interested in the outrageousness of the claim. Economics is the science of how to allocate scarce resources. Macroeconomics takes the same principle but talks about entire economies, about things like how and who to tax, what sort of policies to enact to grow the economy, make sure people have the opportunity to work, keep inflation under control and so on.

These things are sorta relevant for public policy, which is basically an exercise in allocating scarce resources.

And yet, economists are not being asked. Politicians don't listen to them (though this recent thing is the first time I remember hearing them openly attacking the discipline), and the media takes random soundbites out of complex theoretical models and misrepresents them (eg Laffer curve, as mentioned in the article). Ask the normal person what economics is about, and they probably won't be able to tell you.

So is this justified? What do you think about economics as a science, and economists as potential decision makers?

to me, some understanding of economics is essential to have an informed political opinion. i didn't quite get the article (and can't watch the video cos i'm at work)... i don't know enough about american politics... but certainly economists should be consulted about virtually every decision, especially if it concerns fiscal policy of any sort.

i'm (still) quite pleased to have Gordon Brown as our PM, as his 10+ years as Chancellor should give him a good base for understanding the effects of economic policy, and his track record over the last 10 years was good. even if he was too centrist and not left enough...

Economists aren't an altruistic homogenous hive-mind. They have their own prejudices, preferences, politcal opinions and vested interests - what they would lack though is accountability.

Plus economics is not a science. It's a social science, a very different beast.

So is this justified? What do you think about economics as a science, and economists as potential decision makers?
Economics is a science, though not as predictible or measureable as the natural ones (save perhaps ecology). That said, someone making public policy should know about economics and have some sort of background in it. However, economists certainly aren't suitable for making public policy based on their background in economics. There's a whole lot more to public policy than allocating scarce resources.

i'm (still) quite pleased to have Gordon Brown as our PM, as his 10+ years as Chancellor should give him a good base for understanding the effects of economic policy, and his track record over the last 10 years was good. even if he was too centrist and not left enough...
Gordon Brown is no economist, and economics and economic policy are clearly not the same thing. That's the problem.

Plus economics is not a science. It's a social science, a very different beast.
That's what is meant by a the discipline being undermined because of years of public misrepresentation, ie the attempt to portray economists as not knowing what they're talking about.

There's a whole lot more to public policy than allocating scarce resources.
Such as?

This first line stopped me:

To me, the claims being made about this proposal are the same as saying tax cuts pay for themselves.

Considering the fact that the IRS has seen record tax revenues since the tax cuts this statement is false. The deficit is due to the massive increase in spending due to war and growth of government. Bush needs to stop spending and growing government like a Democrat.

Indeed economics is not an exact science but neither is it a "science of how to allocate scarce resources". It can involve scarce resources but it also involves the creation of wealth through ideas. The internet being a good example.

If politicians had any economics education, which they should, they should understand that governmental control of economies leds to ruin and misery.

Such as?Human health and safety, for example.

Considering the fact that the IRS has seen record tax revenues since the tax cuts this statement is false.
Correlation =/= Causation.

Empirical evidence has demonstrated that the Laffer effect doesn't kick in unless we start off with very, very high tax rates. The record revenues were due to an economy that was growing very rapidly indeed, thanks to the housing boom, thanks to very low interest rates. Not tax cuts - many people have now (that it's imploded) tried to pin the housing boom to tax policy, but have been unable to do it.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/05/tom-bozzo-on-ta.html

Indeed economics is not an exact science but neither is it a "science of how to allocate scarce resources".
That's the definition of it. Innovation is simply a question of how to combine scarce resources, which is part of allocating them.

Economists aren't an altruistic homogenous hive-mind. They have their own prejudices, preferences, politcal opinions and vested interests - what they would lack though is accountability.

Plus economics is not a science. It's a social science, a very different beast.
Yes, economists are just as capable of bias as anyone else - just look at Krugman. He was once a top economist but has devolved into a partisan hack. There are economists of every political ideology; does it not strike you as odd then, that there is practically unanimous agreement about the 'tax holiday'?

Economics is not art history, it is quantifiable data with as much rigorous empirical testing as any hard science. Just because politicians or partisan political policy people make wild claims about economics, does not mean we should denigrate the field. Economics is to public policy what pharmacology is to homeopathy.

Human health and safety, for example.
Those are questions of allocating scarce resources, since human health (= safety) is a resource. Human resources, to be exact, and certainly have to be looked at that way by someone who seeks to make public policy.

Economics is not art history, it is quantifiable data with as much rigorous empirical testing as any hard science. Just because politicians or partisan political policy people make wild claims about economics, does not mean we should denigrate the field. Economics is to public policy what pharmacology is to homeopathy.Hoho, no. You can't test an economic theory as you can test other hard science theories. They take a long time to take effect, and the moral justification for manipulating an economy so that one can better read the results is virtually nonexistent.
Those are questions of allocating scarce resources, since human health (= safety) is a resource. Human resources, to be exact, and certainly have to be looked at that way by someone who seeks to make public policy.Exactly. Human health and safety should not be considered a resource.

It is vital that politicians are willing to consider economic issues. The problem with economists is they don't. There is a huge body of economic theory and methods that deal with the problems underlying finite resource distribution, but to your average economist, sticking to the theories is more important than tackling the problems directly, even when said theories are totally inappropriate to a given context.

I agree with the sentiment that economists should not be politicians. Economic theory is not yet at a sufficiently refined stage where its principles can be applied directly to government strategy, yet economists (like Gordon Brown) nonetheless try, and to disastrous effect.

Hoho, no. You can't test an economic theory as you can test other hard science theories. They take a long time to take effect, and the moral justification for manipulating an economy so that one can better read the results is virtually nonexistent.
You can, and people do, test them. Just because the procedures are more complicated than simply looking at a sample produced by an experiment doesn't make them wrong or irrelevant.

Exactly. Human health and safety should not be considered a resource.
See, now that's a social scientist talking. An economist realises that it doesn't matter what you think about the matter, they are a resource (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resource) and that's the end of it. We can assign a very high value to it (and economists do, necessarily, because they are worth a lot) but that doesn't change the principle.

It is vital that politicians are willing to consider economic issues. The problem with economists is they don't. There is a huge body of economic theory and methods that deal with the problems underlying finite resource distribution, but to your average economist, sticking to the theories is more important than tackling the problems directly, even when said theories are totally inappropriate to a given context.
Evidence?

I agree with the sentiment that economists should not be politicians. Economic theory is not yet at a sufficiently refined stage where its principles can be applied directly to government strategy, yet economists (like Gordon Brown) nonetheless try, and to disastrous effect.
Gordon Brown is not an economist. He's a historian.

There are very few politicians with actual educations in economics, and pretty much none of them get the top job.

You can, and people do, test them. Just because the procedures are more complicated than simply looking at a sample produced by an experiment doesn't make them wrong or irrelevant.Oh, I know. People calculate that a worker losing a limb or two is acceptable, because the loss of work power is out-stripped by the money saved on safety measures. Likewise, there's a lovely study saying its ok for people to get killed in easily preventable car accidents, since the loss of the person (and their contribution to the workforce, etc.) is not as high as the cost to the mobile communications industry would be if people weren't allowed to use their cell phones while driving. This shit happens every day, because human beings, their health, their safety, and everything else gets turned into a resource that can be compared to other resources.
See, now that's a social scientist talking. Resource manager, actually.
An economist realises that it doesn't matter what you think about the matter, they are a resource (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resource) and that's the end of it. We can assign a very high value to it (and economists do, necessarily, because they are worth a lot) but that doesn't change the principle.And that is exactly why an economist should not be let loose on society. By assigning a value to certain things, even high values, you cheapen them.

Gordon Brown is no economist, and economics and economic policy are clearly not the same thing. That's the problem.


no, he's a politician. but being head of the Treasury for 10 years must have rubbed off something.

and economic theory informs economic policy, surely?

And that is exactly why an economist should not be let loose on society. By assigning a value to certain things, even high values, you cheapen them.

One would imagine that about sums it up. There would always be the risk that the sums and theories would take no account of the fact they were dealing with people, thus not taking account of effect and perceptions. Not that the non-Economists have nessecarily distinguished themselves as saints either, mind you....

One would imagine that about sums it up. There would always be the risk that the sums and theories would take no account of the fact they were dealing with people, thus not taking account of effect and perceptions. Not that the non-Economists have nessecarily distinguished themselves as saints either, mind you....No, they haven't. The best choice for someone to make public policy is someone with an intensely multi-disciplinary background. Said person cannot go without expert advisors, but the person calling the shots needs to have a broader view on things than someone specialized in one area can offer.

Evidence?
An economist realises that it doesn't matter what you think about the matter, they are a resource (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resource) and that's the end of it. We can assign a very high value to it (and economists do, necessarily, because they are worth a lot) but that doesn't change the principle.
Case in point?

Evidence?


Gordon Brown is not an economist. He's a historian.

There are very few politicians with actual educations in economics, and pretty much none of them get the top job.

thats because most people who acquire an education in economics become so anti social that running for office is just not possible.

There are very few politicians with actual educations in economics, and pretty much none of them get the top job.

Your being a bit unfair there. Vince Cable was acting leader for the third largest party in parliment for few months :p

No, they haven't. The best choice for someone to make public policy is someone with an intensely multi-disciplinary background. Said person cannot go without expert advisors, but the person calling the shots needs to have a broader view on things than someone specialized in one area can offer.
QFT. Expert disciplines like economics, national security, military strategy, etc, etc, are merely pieces of the whole picture that policy-makers must take into account.

It is an axiom that an expert's belief in the breadth of his own wisdom is in inverse proportion to the narrowness of his specialty. In other words, the smaller the section of reality he focuses on, the more of reality he thinks he knows about. :p Economics is an expert specialization, and that renders it not a qualification for making broad policies.

So is this justified? What do you think about economics as a science, and economists as potential decision makers?

economists can make very good decisions and should be listened to by politicians especially when it concerns the economy, and other related issues, which is most things especially when talking about decisions made by a government. Whatever the government does whether it be spending more on health care, changing its tariff structure, even building a new road effects the economy thus economists must be consulted on many policies that the government wish to implement

Considering the fact that the IRS has seen record tax revenues since the tax cuts this statement is false. If politicians had any economics education, which they should, they should understand that governmental control of economies leds to ruin and misery.

First of all that may not be the case, I do not know the exact details of the wealth in America but I will give you some possible explanations. First while personal tax cuts have been given companies have not due to the increase of demand for many goods and services especially the high demand from China, this will see companies revenues increase thus an increase in the dollar value of taxes flowing into the IRS. Second due to the increase of growth in the US over recent years (I am aware there has been a down turn recently) this will lead to more people in jobs who now have to pay tax they won't before and higher wages are being paid thus people are now paying more of a dollar value in tax which increases the revenue to the IRS.

Interesting to see you believe in hardcore liberal economics.

economists can make very good decisions and should be listened to by politicians especially when it concerns the economy, and other related issues, which is most things especially when talking about decisions made by a government. Whatever the government does whether it be spending more on health care, changing its tariff structure, even building a new road effects the economy thus economists must be consulted on many policies that the government wish to implement

When those decisions involve just money yes. When it involves money over human considerations then I would rather politicians didn't listen to economists.

Your being a bit unfair there. Vince Cable was acting leader for the third largest party in parliment for few months.

I thought his background was in finance rather than economics?

You can, and people do, test them. Just because the procedures are more complicated than simply looking at a sample produced by an experiment doesn't make them wrong or irrelevant.

Oh please. Economics is as much a science as psychology is, because that's what it is in essence - mass psychological investigation of people in relation to "resources". Now you can have theories, hypothesis, consequential examinations and all that, but the bottom line is that both real life economies and theoretical economics are human constructs and there is nothing absolute about them. As far as what you know scientifically about any of it, it amounts to fuck all.

I thought his background was in finance rather than economics?


*quickly wikis him*

It appears he got a degree (and later a Phd) in economic, and has worked as an economist. Which is lucky for me :)

Economists should not make public policy, at least not to a greater extent than any other person. In fact no scientist should make policy. They should have their say, and their advice should be taken under consideration. But what we don't need is anyone applying an idealized model to reality; that has consistently failed throughout history. It didn't work for communist Russia, it didn't work for Russia when it made the transition to "democracy", it didn't work for Chili under Pinochet. Reality is not an ideal situation.

Hoho, no. You can't test an economic theory as you can test other hard science theories. They take a long time to take effect, and the moral justification for manipulating an economy so that one can better read the results is virtually nonexistent.
Exactly. Human health and safety should not be considered a resource.
The timescale is nothing compared to geology (of which experiments are impossible anyway).

You can make the identical arguments about pharmacology - the timescale can be significant to determine the longterm effects, and it is often considered immoral to deny patients potentially lifesaving medications, not to mention the control portion of a study gets duped into believing they are taking a drug, when they are in fact not receiving treatment at all.

Everything has trade-offs, economics is simply the study of those trade-offs.
You say health should not be thought of that way, but it most assuredly should be. I find the 'all life is precious and should be fought for no matter what the expense' position to be grossly immoral because those same resources expended to keep one braindead body alive could have saved the lives of dozens of functioning selfaware individuals. But that is a topic for another thread.

<snip>
And yet, economists are not being asked. Politicians don't listen to them (though this recent thing is the first time I remember hearing them openly attacking the discipline), and the media takes random soundbites out of complex theoretical models and misrepresents them (eg Laffer curve, as mentioned in the article). Ask the normal person what economics is about, and they probably won't be able to tell you.

So is this justified? What do you think about economics as a science, and economists as potential decision makers?

Politicians now either care about their own personal views (if they have an ego large enough, say over 1.5 solar masses), or they poll every hour or so to see what they should believe (The Clinton Method).

Of course they won't ask an economist.

An economist could never be elected. To be elected President, you either have to be from a rich family, be a lawyer, or both. Economists may make mistakes, but they suck at lying, which is the primary function of a politician. That, and an economist isn't going to use poll data to make a decision about economics, which would make them extremely unpopular.

That's as absurd a statement as saying "thank God we don't have soldiers making military strategy". Actually, come to think of it, I think we did go along that route a couple of times in the past...we know them better as Vietnam and the second Iraq War.

That's as absurd a statement as saying "thank God we don't have soldiers making military strategy". Actually, come to think of it, I think we did go along that route a couple of times in the past...we know them better as Vietnam and the second Iraq War.

The "ex soldier" who got us into Vietnam was John F. Kennedy. The real driving force there was McNamara, who was a bean-counter for Ford before he had the delusion that he could run the Defense Department. Considering that Kennedy was a Lieutenant in the Navy during WWII, and commander of a PT Boat, in my opinion that's all he was qualified to make military decisions about - running a PT boat.

The "ex soldier" who got us into the current Iraq mess was Bush - who was also a junior officer who was Air Force, and flew interceptors briefly (all he was qualified to do, in the military sense).

None had any training as general officers, or any experience in large scale military campaigns.

The only person in recent memory who ran for President who had any of that sort of experience was Eisenhower (who actually made a good President), and more recently, Clark - who wasn't elected.

You can't generalize "ex soldier". You have to know what the military thought they were qualified to do and how much authority they exercised, before you say, "a military man got us into this shit".

Jimmy Carter was qualified to run a nuclear submarine. And that's it. Not decide on "how to rescue hostages 10,000 miles away in a hostile country".

If you have no real expertise in an area, it's easy to have advisors who will blow smoke up your ass and tell you "oh, it's a good idea if we invade now..."

Economists should not make public policy, at least not to a greater extent than any other person. In fact no scientist should make policy. They should have their say, and their advice should be taken under consideration. But what we don't need is anyone applying an idealized model to reality; that has consistently failed throughout history. It didn't work for communist Russia, it didn't work for Russia when it made the transition to "democracy", it didn't work for Chili under Pinochet. Reality is not an ideal situation.
Of course, why should people who have actual expertise make decisions?
When I get a disease, I might listen to the advice of a doctor, but it is more important to just get random people off the street make the decisions.

The examples you cite are clear examples of why politicians should not have control, not economists. When a politician (or ex-KGB groups) decide to give everything to cronies and twist things to their advantage, that is of course the fault of the economist for not suggesting policies which perfectly account for and correct corruption. In the case of democracies we have politicians pandering to economic ignorance.

I'm constantly flabbergasted - are you people seriously saying it is better for everyone to be less wealthy and less happy so long as they feel like their leader is following their heart than for people to actually be wealthier and happier?

Oh, I know. People calculate that a worker losing a limb or two is acceptable, because the loss of work power is out-stripped by the money saved on safety measures. Likewise, there's a lovely study saying its ok for people to get killed in easily preventable car accidents, since the loss of the person (and their contribution to the workforce, etc.) is not as high as the cost to the mobile communications industry would be if people weren't allowed to use their cell phones while driving. This shit happens every day, because human beings, their health, their safety, and everything else gets turned into a resource that can be compared to other resources.

This rather extreme example does not change the fact that safety is still a resource and must be treated as such whether by someone providing it or someone buying it. I used to work in a betting shop which have a higher than normal risk of robbery. If the company were to stop treating employee safety as a resource and provide a limitless amount we would have needed bullet proof windows and metal detectors on the doors. Do you think it would be feasible or worthwhile to do that in every betting shop? There has to be a suitable appropriate level of safety, rather than just using 100% of available safety measures all the time. Just because the company decides on a sensible level of safety does not make them negligent and if a business is negligent there are legal remedies.

Of course, why should people who have actual expertise make decisions?
When I get a disease, I might listen to the advice of a doctor, but it is more important to just get random people off the street make the decisions.

The examples you cite are clear examples of why politicians should not have control, not economists. When a politician (or ex-KGB groups) decide to give everything to cronies and twist things to their advantage, that is of course the fault of the economist for not suggesting policies which perfectly account for and correct corruption. In the case of democracies we have politicians pandering to economic ignorance.

I'm constantly flabbergasted - are you people seriously saying it is better for everyone to be less wealthy and less happy so long as they feel like their leader is following their heart than for people to actually be wealthier and happier?

Assuming you get one those economists that has the correct view on events (as I said they are not a hivemind), has a good grasp of how policy, law and economic policy works, and is lucky to guess the right thing to do most of the time, you might get people richer (that is if that's what he thinks his purpose is - if he's a pro-corporation fascist, like most rightwingers, then people are largely fucked).

There is lastly the issue of wealth != happiness.

This rather extreme example does not change the fact that safety is still a resource and must be treated as such whether by someone providing it or someone buying it. I used to work in a betting shop which have a higher than normal risk of robbery. If the company were to stop treating employee safety as a resource and provide a limitless amount we would have needed bullet proof windows and metal detectors on the doors. Do you think it would be feasible or worthwhile to do that in every betting shop? There has to be a suitable appropriate level of safety, rather than just using 100% of available safety measures all the time. Just because the company decides on a sensible level of safety does not make them negligent and if a business is negligent there are legal remedies.

Some people aren't happy to be likelier to be shot because protection would hurt the profits of your employer. I'm one of them.

Some people aren't happy to be likelier to be shot because protection would hurt the profits of your employer. I'm one of them.

No, they're not. But you have to draw the line somewhere. How far do you want to go to make the employees safer? Bullet proof vests? Give them weapons of their own? At some point you have to draw the line otherwise it just gets silly, and when you draw that line you have taken safety as a resource by acknowledging that the benefits from providing it are outweighed by the downsides.

No, they're not. But you have to draw the line somewhere. How far do you want to go to make the employees safer? Bullet proof vests? Give them weapons of their own? At some point you have to draw the line otherwise it just gets silly, and when you draw that line you have taken safety as a resource by acknowledging that the benefits from providing it are outweighed by the downsides.

Provision of safety implies resources, yes.
Statistical probabilities of harm occuring are quantifiable, yes.
Harm done, isn't. The health occuring from safety isn't. The provision of safety measures may be like a "resource" but something like actual safety, which is unquantifiable cannot be one.

Some people aren't happy to be likelier to be shot because protection would hurt the profits of your employer. I'm one of them.

At a certain point your employer won't be able to run a business, and then you will no longer be employed. Installing and maintaining security measures costs money, and if a line isn't drawn somewhere at "safe enough" then no one will be able to do anything. Where that line needs to be is arguable, but it needs to be there.

Provision of safety implies resources, yes.
Statistical probabilities of harm occuring are quantifiable, yes.
Harm done, isn't. The health occuring from safety isn't. The provision of safety measures may be like a "resource" but something like actual safety, which is unquantifiable cannot be one.

Safety is the benefit porvided by safety measures. By quantifying the measures you quantify the benefits and negatives those measures provide.

Safety is the benefit porvided by safety measures. By quantifying the measures you quantify the benefits and negatives those measures provide.

By the number of bullets in your chest or by the price of morphine necessary?

At a certain point your employer won't be able to run a business, and then you will no longer be employed. Installing and maintaining security measures costs money, and if a line isn't drawn somewhere at "safe enough" then no one will be able to do anything. Where that line needs to be is arguable, but it needs to be there.

My problem is that the line is drawn by the employer for his own interests.

By the number of bullets in your chest or by the price of morphine necessary?

Ordinal utility. Not everything is measured by a simple number, but that doesn't mean it can't be ranked.

Ordinal utility. Not everything is measured by a simple number, but that doesn't mean it can't be ranked.

What would you rather lose? You legs or your dick?;)

My problem is that the line is drawn by the employer for his own interests.

Of course it is. But his interests serve your interests. if your price for working for him are so high he cannot run his business (and safety measures are a part of that price) then you cannot get a job at his business. An employer is expected, even required, to provide reasonable safety measures, and part of economics is determining what "reasonable" means.

Quite frankly, I do not think that economists should be trusted to make public policy, since, as self-interested beings, they will naturally tend to favor transfers to people in their profession with bigger pay, more prestigious positions, enlarging of departments that deal with economics, etc. regardless of how useful they actually are and then, in a tit for tat, support politicians' policies in order to retain their good will despite how politicians decisions can be so bone-headed. Mr. Menendez kind of sees this, but in a distorted way.

Of course it is. But his interests serve your interests. if your price for working for him are so high he cannot run his business (and safety measures are a part of that price) then you cannot get a job at his business. An employer is expected, even required, to provide reasonable safety measures, and part of economics is determining what "reasonable" means.

Not that you can't find another employer:)

What would you rather lose? You legs or your dick?;)

That's the point. Tradeoffs often have to be made. Not everyone can have everything all the time. I make tradeoffs between my safety and other factors all the time and I'm sure you do to. I could buy a fancy electronic lock and a reinforced door for my house, but I am willing to risk my safety by spending the money on other things. I risk my health by drinking alcohol and eating unhaelthy foods but I choose to make a tradeoff between better health and pleasure. Eveyone does these things, its not a difficult concept.

Not that you can't find another employer:)

Not if you demand infinite security you can't. No one can run a business if they are forced to protect to the maximum possible degree against any possible accident. You would have to do work in bombproof shelters to protect against terrorist attacks, with security guards watching you and more security guards watching them and so on. At a certain point, the cost of protecting you is more than the value the employer gets from having you work for him, and then it becomes pointless, or even a loss, to employ you at all.

This rather extreme example does not change the fact that safety is still a resource and must be treated as such whether by someone providing it or someone buying it. I used to work in a betting shop which have a higher than normal risk of robbery. If the company were to stop treating employee safety as a resource and provide a limitless amount we would have needed bullet proof windows and metal detectors on the doors. Do you think it would be feasible or worthwhile to do that in every betting shop? There has to be a suitable appropriate level of safety, rather than just using 100% of available safety measures all the time. Just because the company decides on a sensible level of safety does not make them negligent and if a business is negligent there are legal remedies.Extreme? That kind of shit happens every day.

Economics is the science of how to allocate scarce resources. Macroeconomics takes the same principle but talks about entire economies, about things like how and who to tax, what sort of policies to enact to grow the economy, make sure people have the opportunity to work, keep inflation under control and so on.

...

What do you think about economics as a science, and economists as potential decision makers?


I've seen Clinton's commercials about "making the oil companies pay" the tax. Which simply amounts to even higher gasoline prices. I didn't watch the video, but I'm confident that the economists have concluded the same.

What I'm really responding to is the definition given above. The problem with this definition occurs when we arrive at the words "how to." "How to" involves making policy, which is distinctly different from science, which involves discovering and understanding phenomena. This same distinction exists in all of the other sciences, social and natural.

I may be a biologist who knows how to cure a particular disease or enhance the effect of a particular gene. This mere knowledge does not give me license; there are potentially all kinds of ethical issues raised by the application of my knowledge. The human biological, medical, and psychological sciences have produced all kinds of sickening horrors, thus prompting the creation of now ubiqutous principles of scientific human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_code) research ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Helsinki). (I've recently graduated in political science, and, because of my own research activities, I've had to listen to lectures and complete tutorials and tests on these principles as well. These principles originated in the field of medicine, but they are now standard for all sciences involving human subjects, including the social/soft sciences.)

If one is going to insist that economics is a "science," I'm going to have to insist that this "science" be subject to the same principles that govern the purposeful use and manipulation of human beings. By clicking the link above, one will find that the very first principle of ethical science is that "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." This is why the democratic decision of the majority must override even the most well informed expert opinion when we are dealing with issues of (macro)economics. No amount of expertise overrides the voluntary consent of the subject(s) who are researched or experimented upon, or upon whom policy developed by said research or experimentation is enacted.

Period.

Now, one's concern about experts being ignored is still a serious one, as the principles of ethical science also require that subjects be fully informed, having "sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision." This principle exists to protect the researcher as much as the researched. The subject should be made completely aware of any potential risk, benefit, or other effect the research may have. Such transparency also makes voluntary participation safer and more likely to occur, benefiting the scientist as well.

Of course, the problem with economics is that it does not encourage such transparency because of the inherent conflict of interests. Economics deals with scarce resources, including those scarce resources needed to survive. Thus, basic self-interest, driven by the desire to survive, creates extremely powerful bias in both scientist and subject. If I have an infection, I will more readily accept the advice of my physician because there is no real conflict of interests; curing my infection doesn't take anything away from the doctor. But when we concern ourselves with the distribution of money, land, or other property, the "scientist" is himself a subject in his own experiment by virtue of the fact that there is a limited supply of money, land, or property to go around. What is "allocated" to me is necessarily deprived from others, including Mr. Economist himself.

Thus, economics is not nearly as objective a science as probably most economists like to think. We should still strive to understand economic phenomena because we do live in scarcity and we do need to know how to cope with the situation. But I think more economists need to understand, especially if they are going to claim to be scientists, that their diplomas do not give them license to act, that their research/experimental and prescriptive/policy actions are absolutely limited by the consent of those they act upon. As such, they should refrain from acting all aghast when people choose to not do as they advise. Tough shit, them's the rules.

At the same time, people need to be much better informed about these issues, so they don't fall victim to unethical manipulations originating in politicians, economists, or between their own ears. This burden for education falls on the shoulders of economists as much as it does on each individual.

Now, all of the above said, I'm curious for someone to explain why mainstream economists wish to be "scientists" anyway. I've always heard that "scientific" economics was a Marxist ideal. Central planning bad, subjective theory of value good, etc. :p

Safety is the benefit porvided by safety measures. By quantifying the measures you quantify the benefits and negatives those measures provide.And it sets us on the path where we end up with a human life being valued less than a couple of phone calls.
The timescale is nothing compared to geology (of which experiments are impossible anyway).Only where tectonics and similarly long-winded phenomena are concerned. You'll find testing for calcium compounds with HCl only takes a few seconds.
You can make the identical arguments about pharmacology - the timescale can be significant to determine the longterm effects, and it is often considered immoral to deny patients potentially lifesaving medications, not to mention the control portion of a study gets duped into believing they are taking a drug, when they are in fact not receiving treatment at all.Pharmacology is a good example of another branch of science that is nearly as difficult to get good data for as for economics. However, it has one decisive advantage: Unlike economics, you can gather a relatively small group of people, test them, and extrapolate their results to the rest of the population.
Everything has trade-offs, economics is simply the study of those trade-offs.
You say health should not be thought of that way, but it most assuredly should be. I find the 'all life is precious and should be fought for no matter what the expense' position to be grossly immoral because those same resources expended to keep one braindead body alive could have saved the lives of dozens of functioning selfaware individuals. But that is a topic for another thread.Degrading a human life to the costs it produces is immoral as well. Question is only which one is more immoral.

And it sets us on the path where we end up with a human life being valued less than a couple of phone calls.

And yet even you will make tradeoffs regarding your own safety for other factors - I presume you don't live in a bubble, of course. It is impossible to make everyone completely safe all the time - someone must always make some sort of decision.

Regardless of the frequency of such activities, do you have a counter to the point I made about having to make decisions about a specific level of safety to provide?I do actually. There's a chain of drugstores here that's come under fire because they've come to the conclusion that greater security for their one employee charged with running the store wouldn't be worth it. As a result, the stores get robbed frequently. However, apparently there are still too few goods stolen to justify security cameras or a second employee. Now, if security weren't considered a resource that can be quantified and included in a CBA, perhaps this shit wouldn't happen.

I do actually. There's a chain of drugstores here that's come under fire because they've come to the conclusion that greater security for their one employee charged with running the store wouldn't be worth it. As a result, the stores get robbed frequently. However, apparently there are still too few goods stolen to justify security cameras or a second employee. Now, if security weren't considered a resource that can be quantified and included in a CBA, perhaps this shit wouldn't happen.

If security were not regarded as a resource they would have to take far greater measures than installing a security camera or hiring more staff, because that will not prevent a robbery or guarantee safety to the highest degree possible. If they do install a camera or hire another employee they have still set a level. They could take the till balance to the bank every hour. They could hire a team of security staff to frisk people at the door. But they don't, so safety is slightly reduced - they are making a tradeoff between safety and the ability of the business to function.

I do actually. There's a chain of drugstores here that's come under fire because they've come to the conclusion that greater security for their one employee charged with running the store wouldn't be worth it. As a result, the stores get robbed frequently. However, apparently there are still too few goods stolen to justify security cameras or a second employee. Now, if security weren't considered a resource that can be quantified and included in a CBA, perhaps this shit wouldn't happen.

So one again, how much is enough? What you are suggesting is that there is no such thing as "Enough".

All we can see from this example is that the security provided was inadequate, based likely on an undervaluation of the life of the person behind the counter.

If security were not regarded as a resource they would have to take far greater measures than installing a security camera or hiring more staff, because that will not prevent a robbery or guarantee safety to the highest degree possible. If they do install a camera or hire another employee they have still set a level. They could take the till balance to the bank every hour. They could hire a team of security staff to frisk people at the door. But they don't, so safety is slightly reduced - they are making a tradeoff between safety and the ability of the business to function.They don't take any security measures at all because security is treated as a resource.

So one again, how much is enough? What you are suggesting is that there is no such thing as "Enough".

All we can see from this example is that the security provided was inadequate, based likely on an undervaluation of the life of the person behind the counter.I'm suggesting we find the right amount without the costs being the deciding factor.

They don't take any security measures at all because security is treated as a resource.

So how should they treat security, if not as a resource?

I'm suggesting we find the right amount without the costs being the deciding factor.

and how do you suggest we determine the "right amount" then?

So how should they treat security, if not as a resource?The question is less what it should be treated as than what it definitely should not be treated as. You can treat it as pink fluffy bunnies for all I care so long as you don't begin reducing it for the sake of increasing your profit margin to the detriment of your employees.
and how do you suggest we determine the "right amount" then?Case by case.

They don't take any security measures at all because security is treated as a resource.

Once again, you miss the point completely. If the business cannot make a tradeoff between security and the effective operation of the business they will have to provide the maximum level of security possible. Are you seriously suggesting that this drugstore should go to every possible length to completely minimise the chances of robbery, such as door security staff to prevent robberies?

I'm suggesting we find the right amount without the costs being the deciding factor.

So you're proposing a tradeoff then?

The question is less what it should be treated as than what it definitely should not be treated as. You can treat it as pink fluffy bunnies for all I care so long as you don't begin reducing it for the sake of increasing your profit margin to the detriment of your employees.

Once again I have to argue that the fault is not in treating security as a resource, but in undervaluing the lives of your employees. When a company does that by providing inadequate security, society should punish the company with fines high enough to make increased security measures the obvious choice.

So you're proposing a tradeoff then?Always have been. What I'm against putting a price tag on wellbeing and safety for the convenience of calculating a profit margin.

Once again I have to argue that the fault is not in treating security as a resource, but in undervaluing the lives of your employees. When a company does that by providing inadequate security, society should punish the company with fines high enough to make increased security measures the obvious choice.Treating security and the well-being of employees and customers is the root cause of that fault. And I'd love to see a country where CBA's that undervalue employees are punishable by fine.

Always have been. What I'm against putting a price tag on wellbeing and safety for the convenience of calculating a profit margin.

so if well being and safety are then priceless, the price of providing adequate well being and safety becomes infinite. And running a business becomes impossible.

Even if you just eyeball it, you're still applying a value to safety, you just aren't admitting it to yourself.

Treating security and the well-being of employees and customers is the root cause of that fault. And I'd love to see a country where CBA's that undervalue employees are punishable by fine.
In most first world countries, inadequate safety measures is already punishable by a fine, but because there is still dithering over what safety measures are "adequate" and enforcement is not what it should be, some businesses fall through the cracks.

Always have been. What I'm against putting a price tag on wellbeing and safety for the convenience of calculating a profit margin.

Its still being treated as a finite resource, the only difference is that you are measuring it against an as yet unspecified measure. I'd like to know what you suggest as the factor that safety be traded off against.

Nevertheless, lets look at the drugstore example - if they put security staff on the door to check customers for weapons as they enter the store, the only tradeoff would be with money, as the staff would cost money and most customers would probably be annoyed by security checks every time they went shopping. If safety is not be reduced for financial reasons, are you in favour of security checks on shop doors?

Its still being treated as a finite resource, the only difference is that you are measuring it against an as yet unspecified measure. I'd like to know what you suggest as the factor that safety be traded off against. You keep treating it like a common resource that can be bartered. Knock it off.
Nevertheless, lets look at the drugstore example - if they put security staff on the door to check customers for weapons as they enter the store, the only tradeoff would be with money, as the staff would cost money and most customers would probably be annoyed by security checks every time they went shopping. If safety is not be reduced for financial reasons, are you in favour of security checks on shop doors?No, I'd suggest security cameras or a second employee.

You keep treating it like a common resource that can be bartered. Knock it off.

Feel free to debate, but don't presume to tell me what I should or should not think. You're also dodging the question - if you are proposing that businesses be allowed to make a tradeoff with regards to safety so long as its not financial what factor do you suggest?

No, I'd suggest security cameras or a second employee.

You are reducing the safety of the employees by not using a door security system. Why should the business not use such a system?

No, I'd suggest security cameras or a second employee.

Why would you suggest that over mandatory checks by armed guards at the door? What makes security cameras or a second employee a more appropriate precaution?

Feel free to debate, but don't presume to tell me what I should or should not think. You're also dodging the question - if you are proposing that businesses be allowed to make a tradeoff with regards to safety so long as its not financial what factor do you suggest?I'm not dodging the question. There is a trade-off. It is financial. One should not attach a price to security or well-being due to the risk of using a CBA to excuse reducing it to an unreasonable level.
You are reducing the safety of the employees by not using a door security system. Why should the business not use such a system?No I'm not. I'm increasing it by adding an extra employee and video cameras.

I'm not dodging the question. There is a trade-off. It is financial. One should not attach a price to security or well-being due to the risk of using a CBA to excuse reducing it to an unreasonable level.

I know what the tradeoff is now, I'm asking you how would you decide which level is appropriate without using a financial measure - what is your alternative measure.

No I'm not. I'm increasing it by adding an extra employee and video cameras.

You're not increasing it to its maximum level. Why not? The only harm is that the business is less profitable, but you already said that businesses shouldn't be allowed to use lower safety standards to make more money.

Why would you suggest that over mandatory checks by armed guards at the door? What makes security cameras or a second employee a more appropriate precaution?The lack of video cameras and a second employee has created a situation where thieves simply enter with the knowledge that the cashier can't stop them without leaving their post, nor will there be any evidence against them save a traumatised cashier. Adding the two would create a deterrent and reduce the trauma the cashiers suffer.

Now, if security were a resource, you would have to calculate sum of the negative effects of the demotivation of the employees and the amount of goods stolen and then compare to the costs of investing in added security.

I'm not dodging the question. There is a trade-off. It is financial. One should not attach a price to security or well-being due to the risk of using a CBA to excuse reducing it to an unreasonable level.so you admit that there is a reasonable level. How do we determine what level of security is reasonable?
No I'm not. I'm increasing it by adding an extra employee and video cameras.
But relative to the option of posting armed guards at the door, you are decreasing it. how do you justify that, if you are arguing that security cannot have a price?


The lack of video cameras and a second employee has created a situation where thieves simply enter with the knowledge that the cashier can't stop them without leaving their post, nor will there be any evidence against them save a traumatised cashier. Adding the two would create a deterrent and reduce the trauma the cashiers suffer.

Now, if security were a resource, you would have to calculate sum of the negative effects of the demotivation of the employees and the amount of goods stolen and then compare to the costs of investing in added security.

And if there are fines for inadequate safety measures, the choice becomes much more obvious. Corporations can not be expected to make moral choices. Their only duty is to profit. When we want corporations to act in a moral manner, the government has to hold them to it.

I know what the tradeoff is now, I'm asking you how would you decide which level is appropriate without using a financial measure - what is your alternative measure.And this is why I told you to knock it off. The whole point is you don't measure it.
You're not increasing it to its maximum level. Why not? The only harm is that the business is less profitable, but you already said that businesses shouldn't be allowed to use lower safety standards to make more money.The level I suggested was reasonable, even if it cost the company more than they'd lose from the constant shoplifting.

And this is why I told you to knock it off. The whole point is you don't measure it.
The level I suggested was reasonable, even if it cost the company more than they'd lose from the constant shoplifting.

how do you determine that it is reasonable? How do you determine that both armed guards and no security precautions are unreasonable? On what do you base that decision?

so you admit that there is a reasonable level. How do we determine what level of security is reasonable?Case by case. Make it dependent on the employees needs and the likelihood of the security level being breached, but not on how much money is involved.
But relative to the option of posting armed guards at the door, you are decreasing it. how do you justify that, if you are arguing that security cannot have a price?Your assumption that security shouldn't have a price tag attached for the sake of determining the need equates to saying security should be maximized in every instance is amusing.
And if there are fines for inadequate safety measures, the choice becomes much more obvious. Corporations can not be expected to make moral choices. Their only duty is to profit. When we want corporations to act in a moral manner, the government has to hold them to it.There currently aren't any fines for said behavior.

how do you determine that it is reasonable? How do you determine that both armed guards and no security precautions are unreasonable? On what do you base that decision?Case by case.

And this is why I told you to knock it off. The whole point is you don't measure it.

So you just pick some arbitrary level? I fail to see how this is an improvement.

The level I suggested was reasonable, even if it cost the company more than they'd lose from the constant shoplifting.

I'm not disputing that. I want to know why you are suggesting the company does not provide the maximum level of safety. What possible harm could it do to force them to do so?

What's with the wide generalisations? It obviously depends on the policy, it would be almost insane to not consult an economist before making decisions on fiscal policy, but it wouldn't be too unusual to make policies on health regulations without economic counselling but it is prudent to also consult chief accountants etc... so you are aware of the effects such policy will have on the economy. Policies concerning civil law would not require any economist at all, so as I said it all depends on the type of policy.

There are very few politicians with actual educations in economics, and pretty much none of them get the top job.

In the UK, many of the shadow mp's and civil service are economists, and although they are not decision makers, the government is dependent on them.

So you just pick some arbitrary level? I fail to see how this is an improvement.Stop treating well-being as something quantifiable and you will. Pick a reasonable level (as in not the one in your strawman argument).
I'm not disputing that. I want to know why you are suggesting the company does not provide the maximum level of safety. What possible harm could it do to force them to do so?I can imagine you want to hear "run them out of business by paying much more than they earn," at this point. There's no need to take not putting a price tag on it to unreasonable lengths. However, giving it a price currently encourages companies to go below a reasonable level of health and safety, so that should be avoided.

Case by case. Make it dependent on the employees needs and the likelihood of the security level being breached, but not on how much money is involved.
ok, so you're arguing that it shouldn't be based on money. I can understand that. But money is just a way of expressing value.
Your assumption that security shouldn't have a price tag attached for the sake of determining the need equates to saying security should be maximized in every instance is amusing.
I was trying to understand what you were getting at. If we refuse to place a value on security, then security either becomes worthless or of infinite worth.
There currently aren't any fines for said behavior.
That depends on where you are. I'm sure that there are states and countries with laws on the books punishing inadequate safety measures. In America, it probably takes the form of lawsuits more often than fines.

Stop treating well-being as something quantifiable and you will. Pick a reasonable level (as in not the one in your strawman argument).

I'll stop treating well being as quantifiable when myself, you and everyone else on the planet stops doing so ona daily basis.

I can imagine you want to hear "run them out of business by paying much more than they earn," at this point. There's no need to take not putting a price tag on it to unreasonable lengths. However, giving it a price currently encourages companies to go below a reasonable level of health and safety, so that should be avoided.

Giving safety a price doesn't. A lack of minumum standards does. Can a company not make decisions based on the cost of prviding safety while a set of standards prevent deliberately negligent behaviour?

Oh, I know. People calculate that a worker losing a limb or two is acceptable, because the loss of work power is out-stripped by the money saved on safety measures. Likewise, there's a lovely study saying its ok for people to get killed in easily preventable car accidents, since the loss of the person (and their contribution to the workforce, etc.) is not as high as the cost to the mobile communications industry would be if people weren't allowed to use their cell phones while driving. This shit happens every day, because human beings, their health, their safety, and everything else gets turned into a resource that can be compared to other resources.
Tell me: how could it possibly be anything else? A human being's health and safety is something that we have and that can be destroyed. In the way that at any given point there is a limited amount of health around, we are dealing with something that is scarce. Many decisions may lead to a change in how much health we will see.

How can you make any reasonable case at all not to see health as a resource then? Fact of the matter is that you can't even think about the problem conceptually without assigning it resource-status and some value, at least on a subconscious level. And if you somehow manage not to do so (and let's face it, that's unlikely) you would be unable to make an informed decision on the matter at hand.

And that is exactly why an economist should not be let loose on society. By assigning a value to certain things, even high values, you cheapen them.
That makes no sense. If I make something cheaper, that means I am lowering its price. Which in turn implies that it already had a price, just a higher one.

no, he's a politician. but being head of the Treasury for 10 years must have rubbed off something.
You'd be surprised.

and economic theory informs economic policy, surely?
It should, but in general it doesn't. Interest groups inform economic policy, and each interest group presents something that is supposed to look like economic theory, but in reality is little bits and pieces ripped out of a whole to support their point. The only exception can be found in central banks, usually. They tend to be run by people who know their economics, but of course they are unelected.

Case in point?
No. I challenge you to come up with a description for any situation involving human health that cannot be framed in terms of calling these things resources.

Economics is an expert specialization, and that renders it not a qualification for making broad policies.
Economics is a pretty broad discipline. There are only two aspects to public policy: the part that is covered by economics, and the part that is only about trying to win votes (which, incidentally, is also covered by economic theory, but that's another story).

When those decisions involve just money yes. When it involves money over human considerations then I would rather politicians didn't listen to economists.
Economics has nothing to do with money.

As far as what you know scientifically about any of it, it amounts to fuck all.
So you expect that the gas holiday policy will actually do all the stuff its proponents promise, then? Or that price controls will work?

Whether or not the sample we have available to test a theory is limited or perhaps biased (how the hell is a country biased towards a certain theory?) matters. But economic theories are not based on specific characteristics of people, they don't require a certain type of person to work, or everyone to work in the same way (especially in macroeconomics). The belief that they do is the sort of misrepresentation of the discipline that makes people get away with saying the things that dude in the video said.

Assuming you get one those economists that has the correct view on events (as I said they are not a hivemind), has a good grasp of how policy, law and economic policy works, and is lucky to guess the right thing to do most of the time, you might get people richer (that is if that's what he thinks his purpose is - if he's a pro-corporation fascist, like most rightwingers, then people are largely fucked).
Wait, is that your problem? That economists don't say things you want to hear?

There is lastly the issue of wealth != happiness.
Which isn't one that matters right here, right now.


What would you rather lose? You legs or your dick?;)
I could pick either and the economic models would be happy with it. That's because they don't prescribe what you should want or what makes you happy.

It's just that their usual use involves material goods, and most of the time the really micro-assumptions are borne out by actual experiments. As for macroeconomics, what I in particular choose has little impact on the economy as a whole. What is chosen on aggregate or in large groups is more important, and tends not to change. Even if it did, the model wouldn't have to change, just the numbers it spits out.

If one is going to insist that economics is a "science," I'm going to have to insist that this "science" be subject to the same principles that govern the purposeful use and manipulation of human beings. By clicking the link above, one will find that the very first principle of ethical science is that "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." This is why the democratic decision of the majority must override even the most well informed expert opinion when we are dealing with issues of (macro)economics. No amount of expertise overrides the voluntary consent of the subject(s) who are researched or experimented upon, or upon whom policy developed by said research or experimentation is enacted.
The question is: can any policy or experiment work on someone who hasn't consented? In biology, the answer is "yes". In psychology, probably not. Even less so in economics, because the whole idea of economics relates to the choices made by individuals. Economics can't possibly tell people what to do with themselves as a top-down prescription. As far as public policy is concerned, it is about building a framework within which people can make their decisions. If a biologist finds that exposure to radioactivity gives you cancer, and as a result policy becomes to remove that big dump of nuclear waste in the middle of the town, then are we imposing something, or are we merely improving the facilitiation of people's own choices?

You could say that people would surely vote for the policy in such a case, and I'd agree. The problem is that when a biologist says something, people won't ignore him or her. Biologists don't get told that their research is somehow clouded by who they are or because their sample size wasn't all of mankind throughout history. The media doesn't take bits of biology out of context and misrepresents them on anything like the scale, and politicians don't do the same either.

So an economist might propose a policy that would improve food- or medicine production and save just as many people as removing the nuclear waste, but chances are he or she won't be listened to. Economists have been talking about pollution credit trading for many decades, but only now are we starting to see movement in that direction - of course, not by consulting actual economists, but by consulting focus groups and lobbyists. And if the policy then doesn't work due to the changes, it's not the government that cops it.

...but it wouldn't be too unusual to make policies on health regulations without economic counselling but it is prudent to also consult chief accountants etc... so you are aware of the effects such policy will have on the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_economics

And an accountant wouldn't know jack about the economy.

Policies concerning civil law would not require any economist at all, so as I said it all depends on the type of policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Becker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_economics



That's different, that's still more concerned with allocation of resources, i.e. the economy. I'm talking about what is and isn't allowed (smoking in pubs? etc...) That's just one of many examples.


And an accountant wouldn't know jack about the economy.


If you insist. He'd know about the budget though, which is important.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Becker


I don't get what this is supposed to be showing me. It's an economist who has applied economic theories to social issues which could be used to justify laws. It doesn't mean you are required to use this system every time you want to legislate good civil laws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_economics

Again same thing: "an approach to legal theory", doesn't mean you HAVE to use this approach.

And an accountant wouldn't know jack about the economy.

I bet Vetalia would beg to differ.

And that is exactly why an economist should not be let loose on society. By assigning a value to certain things, even high values, you cheapen them.

Oh, nonsense. You assign a value to human life. That you're unaware of it isn't something to brag about.

Or are you literally claiming that to save ONE life you'd do ANYTHING, give up ANYTHING, sacrifice ANYTHING? If the answer is no, then human life has a finite value.

Tell me: how could it possibly be anything else? A human being's health and safety is something that we have and that can be destroyed. In the way that at any given point there is a limited amount of health around, we are dealing with something that is scarce. Many decisions may lead to a change in how much health we will see.

How can you make any reasonable case at all not to see health as a resource then? Fact of the matter is that you can't even think about the problem conceptually without assigning it resource-status and some value, at least on a subconscious level. And if you somehow manage not to do so (and let's face it, that's unlikely) you would be unable to make an informed decision on the matter at hand.

Precisely. He's making a case to treat as having a high value, a value not defined by output, but it's still a value. Without assigning a value, it would have to go one of two ways, the value is nothing and thus human resources aren't considered or infinite and thus human resources trump everything else. If it's the first, it wouldn't matter if it were limbs, lives or thousands of lives. If it's the second, people wouldn't work at all, because all effort carries a risk.

Or are you literally claiming that to save ONE life you'd do ANYTHING, give up ANYTHING, sacrifice ANYTHING? If the answer is no, then human life has a finite value.

Value of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life)

Don't know how true it is, but it was an interesting read.

And this is why I told you to knock it off. The whole point is you don't measure it.
The level I suggested was reasonable, even if it cost the company more than they'd lose from the constant shoplifting.

And by suggesting there is such a thing as reasonable, you're assigning a value. That's the point. The valuation is an attempt to strike a reasonable balance.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/05/menendez-thank.html


Now, first of all, let's not make this a "Who should be President?"-topic, we already have some of those.

I'm more interested in the outrageousness of the claim. Economics is the science of how to allocate scarce resources. Macroeconomics takes the same principle but talks about entire economies, about things like how and who to tax, what sort of policies to enact to grow the economy, make sure people have the opportunity to work, keep inflation under control and so on.

These things are sorta relevant for public policy, which is basically an exercise in allocating scarce resources.

And yet, economists are not being asked. Politicians don't listen to them (though this recent thing is the first time I remember hearing them openly attacking the discipline), and the media takes random soundbites out of complex theoretical models and misrepresents them (eg Laffer curve, as mentioned in the article). Ask the normal person what economics is about, and they probably won't be able to tell you.

So is this justified? What do you think about economics as a science, and economists as potential decision makers?

Decision-makers? No. People who should assist decision-makers and shape policy? Of course.

Economists are generally quite adept at spelling out some of the short and long-term consequences of a certain class of actions, and this information is valuable. But let's remember that the purpose of the republic is to serve the general welfare, which may or may not be congruous with economist's plans to maximize utility. To the extent that economist models even attempt to deal with unmeasurables such as "general welfare", they do so by assuming a one-to-one correspondence between welfare and utility, which is an assumption plausibly questioned by a huge number of political philosophers.

As a side note, I'd say economists have a pretty tough row to hoe squaring their long-term economic plans with short term electoral considerations, and on balance I prefer a democratic polity to a hypothetical enlightened economic despotism.

I bet Vetalia would beg to differ.
I don't think so. He's not purely an accountant, but has a strong background in macroeconomics and finance. Looking at the degree structure for pure accountancy at my university, that's not a given.

No. I challenge you to come up with a description for any situation involving human health that cannot be framed in terms of calling these things resources.
Sure. Let's talk Bulimia. Bulimia, particularly of the non-purging variety, is a disease whose primary cause is the overacquisition of resources. You overconsume, then you make up for this overconsumption by working it off, such as through an increased exercise regimen or through easing off for a while.

Framing Bulimia in terms of calling the factors that make a person healthy a resource would not render it a disorder at all, because at any given point the resources they require are both decently balanced and suitably provided. And yet, a strategy of feasting and fasting has negative effects on the human being, both physical and psychological. This is because they're acquiring the necessary resources in an unhelpful way.

It's not enough to just treat health as a resource. You have to factor in processes or algorithms in order for the full abstraction to be covered.

And no. You can't treat algorithms as a resource either - IP legal framework or otherwise.

Sure. Let's talk Bulimia. Bulimia, particularly of the non-purging variety, is a disease whose primary cause is the overacquisition of resources. You overconsume, then you make up for this overconsumption by working it off, such as through an increased exercise regimen or through easing off for a while.

Framing Bulimia in terms of calling the factors that make a person healthy a resource would not render it a disorder at all, because at any given point the resources they require are both decently balanced and suitably provided. And yet, a strategy of feasting and fasting has negative effects on the human being, both physical and psychological. This is because they're acquiring the necessary resources in an unhelpful way.

It's not enough to just treat health as a resource. You have to factor in processes or algorithms in order for the full abstraction to be covered.

And no. You can't treat algorithms as a resource either - IP legal framework or otherwise.

Um, so you're argument is that if you completely misrepresent what Bulimia is AND inaccurately frame the resource argument around it, that you can give an example that won't be accurately represented by economic models.

First of all, the problem of bulimia isn't that you overconsume food. It's that you don't actually get the appropriate nutrition because of the purging. In other words your description is pretty much backwards.

Second of all, that is not the resource argument he framed. It's a complete misunderstanding of it. He was talking about people and their health as being resources, not being functions of resources (which is something altogether different). Your example doesn't even speak to the point.

If one were to describe bulimia as a function of resources, it would be much more accurate that it's based on the person getting less than adequate resources. Bulimics, due to their disorder, consume less calories, and often the wrong calories, than they need to survive. The reason it's not enough is because they artificially use up the calories using laxatives, overexcercising or vomiting (among other things). So describing the condition would no different than talking about a company that mismanages money and thus has less money coming in than it spends.

In the UK, many of the shadow mp's and civil service are economists, and although they are not decision makers, the government is dependent on them.

It's similar in the U.S. Like NL (the other NL) said, though, it is surprising that a politician actually vocally spoke out against economics. It's not that different from when a Kansas school board speaks out against the evolutionist scientists.
I'd be interested to see an economist elected president. I think that not only is knowledge of economics valuable, but knowing how to think economically. Even an economist I mostly disagree with (such as Neu Leonstein) would think of problems they face differently from, say, a lawyer.

Also, a question: I seem to remember learning that Wilson was the only U.S. president to have a PhD. Does anyone remember what it was for?

Assuming you get one those economists that has the correct view on events (as I said they are not a hivemind), has a good grasp of how policy, law and economic policy works, and is lucky to guess the right thing to do most of the time, you might get people richer (that is if that's what he thinks his purpose is - if he's a pro-corporation fascist, like most rightwingers, then people are largely fucked).

There is lastly the issue of wealth != happiness.

From many of your posts it seems you are a anti-corporation fascist, it is interesting to see that you think economists will wreck the economy WTF.

Now it may be true that wealth does not equal happiness but creating wealth in the economy does increase the standard of living for people, that may make them happier

.If you insist. He'd know about the budget though, which is important.

He may know how to add up the numbers, but I would be interested to know if would understand when to have a surplus and how much or a deficit or how and when to allocate the money to ensure the long term growth of the economy. The budget of government's is after all a tool of the government to manage the economy, it is called fiscal policy something an economist should be involved in.