Name one economist who can explain why China and South Korea went from poorer than Ghana, to much richer than Ghana, despite Ghana being a peaceful democracy. Just one...
No, you can't.* Oh shit* it looks like economists have extreme biases that *completely* preclude them from seeing the obvious causes of major phenomena when those causes might look less internationalist/more racist or xenophobic.
this is a pretty typical path for economies dependent on resource extraction. e.g. in 1905 argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world; nowadays they're a middle income country. the extreme improvements in manufacturing productivity seen in much of east asia are not really available in gold mining.
I think the short answer is that Bernie Sanders lost. There hasn't been much economic misinformation to fight, because until now the worst of it had just been privately held beliefs among rank and file voters without influencing policy. Sanders earned far fewer votes than both Clinton and Biden, suggesting that whatever the masses believe, their passion for it isn't enough to translate into real results. The tariff insanity has changed the script, but there really hasn't been such economic illiteracy from an American president in modern history. Maybe this is some kind of free market 4D chess on the part of economists, since they have faith that, whatever ignorance might afflict the masses, in the end the adults will be in charge and things will work out relatively alright. Or, if a policy is so bad, markets will respond appropriately and we'll self-correct.
Effects on policy notwithstanding, I'm still concerned about masses of people believing untrue things, but then I'm not sure economists want that sort of target on their backs. Like you pointed out, economic misinformation historically comes from the left. The left's heuristic of "trusting experts" is very good, but speaking as someone on the left: if they make the connection that economists are experts, they're more likely to ditch experts than suddenly trust economists.
There's an apples-to-oranges you (really, Caplan) are making here. Excerpt:
"In the late 1970s, Kearl et al. asked economists whether “wage-price controls should be used to control inflation.” Almost three-quarters of economists generally disagreed. In contrast, the General Social Survey (henceforth, GSS) reports that solid majorities of noneconomists think it should be government’s responsibility to “keep prices under control.” Those who agree outnumber those who disagree by at least 2:1 and often 3:1."
Those 2 questions are not asking about the same thing. One could think that price and wage controls are bad, while also thinking it's the government's responsibility to keep prices under control via not-too-inflationary monetary policy. Not via price controls.
Name one economist who can explain why China and South Korea went from poorer than Ghana, to much richer than Ghana, despite Ghana being a peaceful democracy. Just one...
No, you can't.* Oh shit* it looks like economists have extreme biases that *completely* preclude them from seeing the obvious causes of major phenomena when those causes might look less internationalist/more racist or xenophobic.
this is a pretty typical path for economies dependent on resource extraction. e.g. in 1905 argentina was one of the ten richest countries in the world; nowadays they're a middle income country. the extreme improvements in manufacturing productivity seen in much of east asia are not really available in gold mining.
LMAO
I think the short answer is that Bernie Sanders lost. There hasn't been much economic misinformation to fight, because until now the worst of it had just been privately held beliefs among rank and file voters without influencing policy. Sanders earned far fewer votes than both Clinton and Biden, suggesting that whatever the masses believe, their passion for it isn't enough to translate into real results. The tariff insanity has changed the script, but there really hasn't been such economic illiteracy from an American president in modern history. Maybe this is some kind of free market 4D chess on the part of economists, since they have faith that, whatever ignorance might afflict the masses, in the end the adults will be in charge and things will work out relatively alright. Or, if a policy is so bad, markets will respond appropriately and we'll self-correct.
Effects on policy notwithstanding, I'm still concerned about masses of people believing untrue things, but then I'm not sure economists want that sort of target on their backs. Like you pointed out, economic misinformation historically comes from the left. The left's heuristic of "trusting experts" is very good, but speaking as someone on the left: if they make the connection that economists are experts, they're more likely to ditch experts than suddenly trust economists.
There's an apples-to-oranges you (really, Caplan) are making here. Excerpt:
"In the late 1970s, Kearl et al. asked economists whether “wage-price controls should be used to control inflation.” Almost three-quarters of economists generally disagreed. In contrast, the General Social Survey (henceforth, GSS) reports that solid majorities of noneconomists think it should be government’s responsibility to “keep prices under control.” Those who agree outnumber those who disagree by at least 2:1 and often 3:1."
Those 2 questions are not asking about the same thing. One could think that price and wage controls are bad, while also thinking it's the government's responsibility to keep prices under control via not-too-inflationary monetary policy. Not via price controls.
I don’t think it matters how you ask the questions. Here’s a poll from last year showing 65% support for price controls on groceries
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50369-kamala-harris-economic-platform-resonates-across-party-lines
Unlikely voters are thinking about monetary policy in a question like this.
Fair. I think the point you (and Caplan) are making is correct anyways.