I said, “If the professional economists are the ones generating these fallacies, economic problems are being caused by the guys who are supposed to be solving them. It sure gets discouraging to know that the people we expect to know what they are talking about, don’t. They’ve got to be delusional.”
Said my neighbor, “You’re right. And, although they flatter themselves that they are doing brilliant work, in their precise and minute examination of particular trees, they overlook the woods. They keep trying to reinvent the wheel. They don’t learn from history. In fact, they’re sometimes surprised to find themselves trying to revive defunct ideas from seventeenth-century mercantilism, Marxist Socialism, Mussolini-style Corporatism, or some other way to institute government regulation of the entire national economy.”
“You mean in their mathematical approach? I know they can produce charts and graphs at the drop of a hat,” I said. “Still, there’s something fundamentally important missing here. If the professional economists are so mistaken, and their mistakes are so obvious, how are they getting away with it?”
Said my neighbor, “Bad economists can present their mistakes more plausibly than good economists can present their truths. The sad fact is that bad economists can always be more plausible than good economists because, like demagogues, bad economists tell only partial-truths. To be fair, as far as the partial-truth goes, they may often be right. The insidious part to remember, however, is that although the public hears only the partial-truth, they think they have heard the whole truth.”
“So, how do we deal with that? I asked.
“The answer lies in supplementing and correcting the bad economists’ partial-truths with the missing truth. It’s in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer, less desirable effects. It lies in showing that the policy will benefit one group, but only at the expense of all other groups.”
“Oh,” I groaned. “Well, good luck on that. But, why is that so hard to do?”
“It makes me sad to say, Draco,” said my neighbor, “but many people are intellectually lazy and the process of explanation is really boring. To consider all the major consequences of a proposed policy on everybody requires a long, complicated, very dull chain of reasoning. On average, it takes at least thirty words of supplementary truth to balance one word of partial truth. People find it difficult to follow. They become bored, inattentive, turned off. They go watch TV or go do something else.”
On hearing that, I lost it. “I know, I know,” I screamed. “I feel like you’ve been making me crawl on my hands and knees over a field of broken glass to get this far. If it weren’t for the pain, I’d have gone to sleep a long time ago.” Then, recovering from my fit of pique, “I’m sorry, please go on.”
“Bad economists know about and take advantage of intellectual laziness. They assure people they don’t need to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits. They say it’s only ‘laissez-faire’ or‘capitalist apologetics’ or whatever other abusive term may strike them as effective at the time.”
“And all those lazy people buy into it, right? That sucks, Neighbor. That just plain sucks,” I said.
Said my neighbor, “You’re right. And, although they flatter themselves that they are doing brilliant work, in their precise and minute examination of particular trees, they overlook the woods. They keep trying to reinvent the wheel. They don’t learn from history. In fact, they’re sometimes surprised to find themselves trying to revive defunct ideas from seventeenth-century mercantilism, Marxist Socialism, Mussolini-style Corporatism, or some other way to institute government regulation of the entire national economy.”
“You mean in their mathematical approach? I know they can produce charts and graphs at the drop of a hat,” I said. “Still, there’s something fundamentally important missing here. If the professional economists are so mistaken, and their mistakes are so obvious, how are they getting away with it?”
Said my neighbor, “Bad economists can present their mistakes more plausibly than good economists can present their truths. The sad fact is that bad economists can always be more plausible than good economists because, like demagogues, bad economists tell only partial-truths. To be fair, as far as the partial-truth goes, they may often be right. The insidious part to remember, however, is that although the public hears only the partial-truth, they think they have heard the whole truth.”
“So, how do we deal with that? I asked.
“The answer lies in supplementing and correcting the bad economists’ partial-truths with the missing truth. It’s in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer, less desirable effects. It lies in showing that the policy will benefit one group, but only at the expense of all other groups.”
“Oh,” I groaned. “Well, good luck on that. But, why is that so hard to do?”
“It makes me sad to say, Draco,” said my neighbor, “but many people are intellectually lazy and the process of explanation is really boring. To consider all the major consequences of a proposed policy on everybody requires a long, complicated, very dull chain of reasoning. On average, it takes at least thirty words of supplementary truth to balance one word of partial truth. People find it difficult to follow. They become bored, inattentive, turned off. They go watch TV or go do something else.”
On hearing that, I lost it. “I know, I know,” I screamed. “I feel like you’ve been making me crawl on my hands and knees over a field of broken glass to get this far. If it weren’t for the pain, I’d have gone to sleep a long time ago.” Then, recovering from my fit of pique, “I’m sorry, please go on.”
“Bad economists know about and take advantage of intellectual laziness. They assure people they don’t need to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits. They say it’s only ‘laissez-faire’ or‘capitalist apologetics’ or whatever other abusive term may strike them as effective at the time.”
“And all those lazy people buy into it, right? That sucks, Neighbor. That just plain sucks,” I said.
No comments:
Post a Comment