Listen now | Starring Zach Carter; with Noah Smith & Brad DeLong :: 30:00 < [Length of Weekly Podcast] < 60:00: Key Insights: “This time, for sure!…” Are the Democrats Bullwinkle Moose or Rocket J. Squirrel “that trick never works!” in hoping that they can get a high-investment high-productivity growth full-employment high-wage growth economy, and then the political life for true equality of opportunity will be doable?… Milton Friedman is of powerful historical importance as one of the principal creators of our still-neoliberal world, but his ideas now—whether monetarism, or his assumption that all political organizations and policies everywhere and always are inescably rent-seeking grifters—are now of historical interests only… We are coquetting with the modes of expression of Antonio Gramsci today, aren’t we?... Hexapodia!
If ever anyone needed any convincing that economics is not a science, this self-revelatory podcast was it. If Mark Thoma listened to it in his retirement, this would put a nail in his assertion that it was a science. The sorry story of Lysenko-ism is what happens when science fails to follow its methodology and becomes politicized to fit the prevailing politics. Science will "follow the money" but over my lifetime I cannot think of any examples where science changed its beliefs about nature dependent on some ideology. It might be repressed, as in the GOPs attempts to defund research into areas they disapprove, or in denial, of, or it may be funded to support some wrongheaded belief, but science is resolutely self-correcting and one doesn't get factions arguing over major issues like evolution vs creationism once the experiments have shown which is correct. Continental Drift is the only example I can think of where there was dispute, but geologists and planetary scientists no longer question it. Similarly, the Moon landings settled whether lunar cratering was volcanic or due to impacts. Economics doesn't seem to settle much at all, and factions can continue to disagree over decades (centuries?) over how the macro-economy works. And now I hear how which belief an economist can hold depends on which group he works with. Just imagine if this is how science dealt with the pandemic and the advice was supportive of the political party that was in power. While scientists tempered their advice in fear of losing their jobs, I didn't read of any outsight support of crazy ideas.
The podcast also raised the clear difference in economist's view of the world as rational homo economics and how people really behave. The futility of expecting people to be less racist by demonstrating that they would be better off if they did so runs face on to the social perceptions of those who want to retain their status. In the 1990s, Robert Reich once said that audiences to his talks invariably preferred lower economic growth if it meant that this kept the US ahead of Japan. I suspect the same response would be elicited if China was substituted for Japan. It is the fear of losing a national position in the international hierarchy that drives this. I also don't think this is irrational either but reflects the limitations of economics in addressing real issues that go beyond what the numbers indicate.
If ever anyone needed any convincing that economics is not a science, this self-revelatory podcast was it. If Mark Thoma listened to it in his retirement, this would put a nail in his assertion that it was a science. The sorry story of Lysenko-ism is what happens when science fails to follow its methodology and becomes politicized to fit the prevailing politics. Science will "follow the money" but over my lifetime I cannot think of any examples where science changed its beliefs about nature dependent on some ideology. It might be repressed, as in the GOPs attempts to defund research into areas they disapprove, or in denial, of, or it may be funded to support some wrongheaded belief, but science is resolutely self-correcting and one doesn't get factions arguing over major issues like evolution vs creationism once the experiments have shown which is correct. Continental Drift is the only example I can think of where there was dispute, but geologists and planetary scientists no longer question it. Similarly, the Moon landings settled whether lunar cratering was volcanic or due to impacts. Economics doesn't seem to settle much at all, and factions can continue to disagree over decades (centuries?) over how the macro-economy works. And now I hear how which belief an economist can hold depends on which group he works with. Just imagine if this is how science dealt with the pandemic and the advice was supportive of the political party that was in power. While scientists tempered their advice in fear of losing their jobs, I didn't read of any outsight support of crazy ideas.
The podcast also raised the clear difference in economist's view of the world as rational homo economics and how people really behave. The futility of expecting people to be less racist by demonstrating that they would be better off if they did so runs face on to the social perceptions of those who want to retain their status. In the 1990s, Robert Reich once said that audiences to his talks invariably preferred lower economic growth if it meant that this kept the US ahead of Japan. I suspect the same response would be elicited if China was substituted for Japan. It is the fear of losing a national position in the international hierarchy that drives this. I also don't think this is irrational either but reflects the limitations of economics in addressing real issues that go beyond what the numbers indicate.