Insights on How Many Economists Operate

In the last few months I’ve participated in two debates with economists and have been dressed down by one of the rock stars in the academy.  While I know many cordial economists I have met far too many that lack basic civility and tact.  Perhaps they respond to incentives that favor aggressiveness over compromise and rich financial sponsorship over unbiased search for the truth.

            While I am painting with a broad brush I see far too many economists with the following characteristics:

1)         They receive ample financial sponsorship that supports results-driven research and advocacy.

2)         They may not disclose their sponsorship.  If they do, they still will insist that outcomes supportive of their sponsor are incidental.

3)         They make up their own rules.  As a lawyer I have to work within case precedent and the rule of law.  Economists can create rules that become legitimate by use and the aforementioned financial sponsorship, e.g., the Efficient Components Pricing Rule.

4)         They place a premium of aggressiveness and snarkiness.

5)         They personalize and attack when the merits do not favor their position.  In one debate an economist did not address the merits of my arguments, but instead emphasized that “Professor Frieden and his ilk” are bad for America, etc.

6)         They revile laws that don’t make economic sense, but freely engage in the practice of law without a license.

7)         They are better at math than most people and consider this as confirmation of their superior intelligence.

8)         They consider themselves the smartest people in the room and let you know it.

9)         They often create papers that recite the obvious, or advocate something counter-intuitive that they can "prove" with math; and

10)       They have freedom to assume anything to provide any solution.  How does an economist get out of a hole?  He or she assumes a ladder.

George Will Vilifies Liberals for Liking a Telephone Monopoly

           Over the years George Will, writers at the New Yorker and the Economist and John Le Carre have motivated me to increase my vocabulary.  So it brings sadness for me to read how George Will, despite his command of the spoken word has resorted to sheer nonsense perhaps to punch up his work.

            Mr. Will thinks “liberals mourn the passing of the days when there was one phone company, three car companies, three television networks, an airline cartel, and big labor and big business were cozy with big government.” See http://m.cjonline.com/opinion/2011-07-30/george-will-libertarian-fix.

            First, I have not seen a liberal/conservative dichotomy on matters of monopolies and cartels.  Second, the majority of telecom mergers, which would take us closer to a cozy oligopoly or monopoly, are goosed by rent seekers of all political persuasions.  I dare say the proponents of most telecom mergers are Republican, but such party affiliation means nothing when opportunities exist to acquire market share. 

            Is George Will suggesting that liberals do not want to see major elements of the economy spending sleepless afternoons competing?  Alas even George Will has amped up the snark and hyperbole.

            From my vantage point party affiliation and even political ideology matters little when opportunities to work less hard arise.  If anything political parties and individuals show little of the consistency Mr. Will infers.  Recall that liberal Jimmy Carter initiated deregulation of the airlines.  And the Justice Department of a former President by the name of Richard Nixon brought an antitrust suit that resulted in AT&T’s divestiture.