Talking to the right-winger in your life

I do, and it's a good point.

I've never seen anybody go from left to right or vice versa in a short time frame. Human beings are way too stubborn, and usually they had good reason to be where they are in the first place, so counterevidence will take a while to accumulate in a sufficient manner.

I've never found natural scientists to be rightwing...I'd say they fall more on the left than right side in my experience.

If you're going to indulge self-gratifying fantasies, could you please close the door? And clean up after yourself.

Not if they're about me.

Another possibility is that Mikhail's interlocutors have developed analytical skills, and that they keep finding flaws in his arguments.

Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

Economists wouldn't make that mistake. Nor would we dismiss computer scientists in a discussion of the merits of a particular algorithm.

Economists are often the worse. Ever take a University level economics course? Once they start in on the "free market" and the "invisible hand" my eyes glaze over and I know I am in the wrong class.

Apples, no offense but weren't you the one who posted the sciences on a scale, with sociologists being the lowest and mathematicians being the highest?

Anyways, most of the Business majors and computer science students were some of the most conservative groups of people I have ever met. I expect it is a product of their education OR they pick these fields because they are conservative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Another possibility is that Mikhail's interlocutors have developed analytical skills, and that they keep finding flaws in his arguments.

Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ][/b]

---

I found most of my computer science colleagues to be poorly equipped for moral or political arguments. (In fact, I can recall discussing this with one of them. He agreed.) I don't say this because a lot of them were conservative. I recognize a good debater whatever his or her position. I think it's maybe due to a lack of general knowledge: not knowing the history of such discussions, perhaps, or the range of opinion, the counter-arguments, etc.

That's not to say I haven't heard a lot of very poor arguments on all sides.

Stephen Gordon,

Do you think Rand-O-Bots constitute a significant fraction of the economics population?

I wonder if there is still a difference between econ and business majors in terms of political views. Survey research from the 1970s demonstrated that econ majors were quite a bit more left than business majors, but this was when Keynesians were still pretty prominent on university faculties and before NAIRU, rational expectations, etc. were that prevalent in undergraduate courses. Although econ is a social science and not a "vocational" major I imagine far more go on to get MBA's than go into grad school in economics.

Friedman's "natural rate" isn't inherently a rightwing idea either (Marx and Kalecki certainly endorsed similar ideas)...but I think economists perceive themselves to be less "liberal" than they did a generation ago...but how about the rest of my point? My feeling is a lot of progressive-minded people who might have been attracted to economics in the past don't do so today, but I have no way to prove it.

But intellectual breadth, and the ability to see the forest for the trees, is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Your feeling may well be justified. But if leftists are content with learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties (or on internet discussion boards) attended by non-economists, then that's a problem for leftists, not economists.

Economics is an important subject, and learning it properly requires investing heavily in specialised skills. Intellectual sloth is not a moral virtue.[/b]

---

There's some truth to that. For instance a lot of leftists are hostile to the idea of a "natural rate of unemployment, quite understandably I think. Doesn't mean they should just "give up" and say, ah, economics is just rightwing pseudo-science.

That being said, have you found there to be a difference between econ majors and business majors in terms of aspirations, political views, etc.?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
Today, in fields as "diverse" as literature and economics, experts create insider language that excludes those not inititated into the elite of a given field. Their study no longer contributes to public debate, in fact the public is advised very seriously to "stay out of it".

This obscures knowledge, debate, and I would argue democracy.

---

To the extent that is true, is it only a recent development? George Bernard Shaw once remarked that the professions are a conspiracy against the general public.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
[b]And that is a good point. I try to remind myself constantly that there is nothing new under the sun.[/b]

---

A lot of very intelligent people have been working a lot of hours on a lot of questions for a very long time.

When Isaac Newton published the principia, other intellectuals were shocked that there was a development they could not understand.

The days of people being experts on all subjects are over, and that is because there is a lot that is new under the sun.

quote:

---

Economists wouldn't make that mistake.

---

Oh, c'mon, Stephen. Most economists are ideologically slanted. If a theory doesn't fit their ideological beliefs, it is dismissed while those that do are trumpeted. You, yourself, will continue to advocate economic models and theories even when all the evidence suggests the opposite results (or worse the results just aren't tabulated).

Two easy and quick examples:

One, to prove that Friedman-ite economic theories are working, i.e. keeping inflation in check (inflation defined primarily as worker's wages, IMV), food and energy are removed from the US measurement of "Core Inflation". Yes, yes, they have many arguments and rationale to justify this, but it is skewed numbers nonetheless and supported by economists.

There are two messages one can derive from this: One is that the government and their economists don't give a shit about the impacts of inflation on citizens or, more likely, 2.2% inflation sounds much nicer to the economic ideologues than 4 or 5 per cent inflation.

A second example: In Wisconsin, the government did a common sense revolution and tightened welfare restrictions that impacted largely single mothers and their children. The economists and politicians who championed the draconian laws heralded the much reduced welfare rates for the state. Poverty advocates say the new regulations have cast many women and children into deeper poverty and, often, homelessness.

So who is right? Well, the politicians and their economists chose not to track people once they leave welfare. So the only statistic that matters is the one that would indicate welfare rolls are lower.

Sorry, Stephen, economics can, and is, twisted and turned to suit any ideological preconception no matter how bent.

Economists are not free of ideology and as Friedman and his many followers have proved, they have no moral qualms about perverting their academic knowledge in the service of their ideological faith.

[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I certainly believe that Stephen contributes greatly to this board. He challenges the prevailing wisdom here, and has in fact changed my mind on a number of issues with his arguments. I appreciate him and his contribution here immensely.

That we disagree on some basic starting point issues bothers me not a whit. That he is snarky on occasion does not bother me either; he is subject to much snark himself. That doesn't mean I won't strenuously respond when I think he is far off the mark, and I hope he does the same with me.

If I have ever given another impression, I hope this corrects that record.

quote:

---

Other than Prof. Gordon, are there any other professional economists who post here with any regularity?

---

How would we know? Is MikeS an economist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Self-awareness is a moral virtue. Hypocrisy isn't.

If you feel entitled to sit back and pass judgment on the economic ignorance of your inferiors here, you are obliged to debate the issues and explain what error you perceive in their approach.

But you don't; perhaps you can't, but most likely it's just 'intellectual sloth'.

As such, you continuously infuriate, and are seldom (and less and less often) seen to make any useful contribution here. This thread is a perfect example of your dismissive and alienating behaviour.

---

quote:

---

I hope he does, too. Unfortunately, my point was that Stephen seems to have given up on making any effort whatsoever.

---

Is it at all possible for you to participate in one of these threads without passing judgment on me?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]... learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties ...[/b]

---

That's a function of how late you arrive.

quote:

---

which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person

---

Whoa! Like ever? Do you guys keep a moderator database? Am I in there?

Unfortunately I'm becoming a geezer. Cricks and pains and ornery at them younguns squealing their tires all day.

My favourite economist to read is Paul Krugman at the NYT. He is great at explaining concepts, backing up his point of view, and seems to be fair and intellectually honest.

If SG is 'above us' for lack of a better word, in the field of economics, then he should take the opportunity to educate us and engage in honest debate. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to learn more on the topic.

I have a degree in Mathematics, and have worked in computer sciences for many years. My social circle includes several individual with science degrees who, like me, consider themselves left of center.

If I'm engaged in a debate where mathematical knowledge comes into play, I always try to take the time to explain and simplify concepts. It's usually possible to explain even difficult concepts to most people and web forums provide a good medium for Q&A.