Home
I won’t make a habit of this, but a comment on this blog about the Dilbert Survey of Economists was so well written that I am promoting it. I don’t entirely agree with the writer’s point, but I am impressed with its clarity. Clear thinking makes me happy.

From user Olivaw:

As an economist, I find a number of the reactions to this survey very curious.

First, in general what economists agree on most of all is a framework for evaluating government policy. Notions such as efficiency, equity, market failure, market equilibrium, and benefit-cost analysis are regarded as useful ways of thinking about the economy and possible policy interventions.

Second, most economists I know are not highly partisan. This is in part because most economists like most people have other interests than partisan politics. But it is also because studying economics tends to lead towards having somewhat complicated views on issues that often cross party orthodoxy. So, most Democratic economists tend to be moderate Democrats, and most Republican economists are moderate Republicans.

Third, the notion that somehow being an economist would lead you inevitably to support a certain candidate is strange. Economists in many cases might largely agree on the framework for evaluating a policy. They might even agree on the policy's effects. But how to value the disparate effects relies in many cases on subjective values, about which economics as a profession has little useful to say (try philosophy).

So, for example, for many policies economists might agree that the policy should be evaluated in terms of its effects on efficiency (the size of the economic pie) and equity (how equally the pie is distributed). In some cases, economists might even agree on the approximate size of these efficiency and equity effects. However, if the policy increases efficiency but decreases equity, or decreases efficiency but increases equity, there is NOTHING in economics that tells you what relative value you should place on efficiency vs. equity, and therefore what you should choose.

In general, I suspect the economists who favor Obama tend to have a greater relative weight on equity vs. efficiency compared to economists who favor McCain. Both groups might agree that both efficiency and equity are important, but they disagree PHILOSOPHICALLY (outside of their training as economists) on the relative importance of these two social values.
 
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +16
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
Apr 14, 2009
Intervention is the most powerful tool for families who want to help a loved one who is struggling with alcoholism and drug addiction.

Whether you hire a professional interventionist or do it on your own, you will find the resources here to move forward with confidence.

Alcoholics and addicts are our family members and friends. Although we see the addiction, they cannot. When we offer treatment, they refuse. When we talk to them, they blame us or someone else. It begins to feel hopeless, but it's not. This website will show you how to take action.

Intervention teaches families and friends a language alcoholics can understand. It organizes love and honesty in a way that breaks through denial. It creates a moment of clarity for the alcoholic.

Most people suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction will accept help on intervention day. You can meet our professional interventionists here.

Intervention requires new information. Learn for yourself, then ask other family members to join you. Once everyone is educated, you can make a family decision about intervention. If you decide to move ahead, planning and preparation are your keys to success. Here's an intervention checklist.
-----------
mukesh11
[url=http://www.drug-intervention.com/missouri-drug-intervention.html]Drug Intervention Missouri[/url] - Drug Intervention Missouri
 
 
Apr 14, 2009
Intervention is the most powerful tool for families who want to help a loved one who is struggling with alcoholism and drug addiction.

Whether you hire a professional interventionist or do it on your own, you will find the resources here to move forward with confidence.

Alcoholics and addicts are our family members and friends. Although we see the addiction, they cannot. When we offer treatment, they refuse. When we talk to them, they blame us or someone else. It begins to feel hopeless, but it's not. This website will show you how to take action.

Intervention teaches families and friends a language alcoholics can understand. It organizes love and honesty in a way that breaks through denial. It creates a moment of clarity for the alcoholic.

Most people suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction will accept help on intervention day. You can meet our professional interventionists here.

Intervention requires new information. Learn for yourself, then ask other family members to join you. Once everyone is educated, you can make a family decision about intervention. If you decide to move ahead, planning and preparation are your keys to success. Here's an intervention checklist.
-----------
mukesh11
<a href="http://www.drug-intervention.com/missouri-drug-intervention.html">Drug Intervention Missouri</a> - Drug Intervention Missouri
 
 
Sep 22, 2008
Funnish: I am even more amused. Thanks for the Hitler reference!

There is certainly some superficial overlap between the skills for private sector CEOs and public sector CEOs -- enough to tempt one into overlooking the differences. However, the differences can be very significant, depending on the management style. An autocratic manager, for example, is going to have to develop entirely new skills to deal with Congress and the press (note Cheney's abysmal performance in this regard).

The President must deal with Constitutional and political limits that a private CEO will never face. It is certainly possible for a private CEO to succeed as a President, but no more likely than in any of the other places we can look for leaders.
 
 
Sep 22, 2008
(Touche, Stomper, but don't be so sensitive.)

Stomper, chhomes, et al:

CEOs know about efficiency; how to deliver a product with value (and what happens when there is no value); CEOs have experience working within a budget, not printing money; and, most importantly, how to make tough decisions (like hiring and firing).

Stomper, with so much experience under your belt (as you've stated), you should know that CEOs are often recruited by other companies - even in different industries. That's because most CEOs possess leadership skills that are universal.

I think our disagreement lies in our measurement of a successful politician. The whole idea that a politician has a skillset totally unique from that of private sector leaders' is easily one of the most arrogant (and scary) things I've ever heard. What a disservice to miss out on the diversity of ingenuity in the private sector.

Hitler used the same arguments before he...(How's that?)


 
 
Sep 22, 2008
Hello,

First comment, about the survey. I think that Scott expected most economy experts to be pro McCain, and the fact that it is the other way around has thrown him off-balance. Now we discuss about CEOs and the likes.

Second: CEOs know about running business, not about economy. They are different things, just related. Regardless of the ethics or stupidity of real-life CEOs, I think most are very good at running companies.

Third: after reading the following blog entry, I wonder that ANY economist is for McCain...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/21/9322/74248/245/602838

Regards,
christian
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 21, 2008
I’m certainly glad that Scott Adams and at least some posters felt that my comment made a useful contribution.

I can’t respond to all the comments, but here are several responses.

Poster Phantom II challenged me to prove with studies that economists are moderate. I don’t know how to prove this because I don’t know how to objectively define “moderate”.

However, there is some evidence that economists of all political stripes tend to be pro free trade. Economists tend to believe that environmental regulation is legitimate, but that regulation should be made more efficient by tools such as transferable discharge permits. Economists would tend to believe that concern with the distribution of income is a legitimate role of government. (For some backing for all these propositions, see the study of economists’ opinions on various policy issues in a paper by Fuller and Geide-Stevenson, 2003, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~econed/pdffiles/fall03/fuller.pdf . And by the way, I am not one of the authors of this paper.)

Poster JoshP said that he thought that economists had become more partisan because they had more political power. However, most economists do not have any particular political power. As various posters pointed out, most economists are professors at universities. And of those who aren’t, many work in various technical capacities for various government agencies, or for research organizations. In all these cases, their job is to try to do research that analyzes data related to some economic issue in a reasonably objective fashion.

Jason Furman (Obama’s chief economic advisor) and Doug Holtz-Eakin (McCain’s chief economic advisor) are both excellent economists who are, by the nature of their jobs, highly partisan. However, the daily work of most economists has little in common with the daily work of Furman and Holtz-Eakin.

Most economists can reach consensus on an objective analysis of the economic issues facing the U.S. However, they may reach different conclusions on which aspects of that analysis deserve the greatest weight in reaching decisions.

For example, the best analysis I have seen to date of Obama’s and McCain’s tax plans is the analysis by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. (I also am not affiliated with either of these two institutions) This analysis is available at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 .

I think most economists could agree with 90% of what is in the Tax Policy Center’s paper. However, I think one could agree with 90% of this analysis, and still support either candidate.

 
 
Sep 21, 2008
Funnish:

I am entertained by your tactics, particularly by the ad hominem attacks and your unwillingness to come to grips with my actual point. I hope you were striving for some kind of over-the-top caricature of a right-wing talk-show host, because that's how you come across.

I never "demonized" corporations or capitalism. In my work, I represent companies as often as I sue them. When I represented a Fortune 50 company, we were DEFENDING the CEO's decisions (which were under attack by another corporation, with its own CEO).

I never said CEOs are "idiots," and it is amusing that you pulled that straw-man argument out of the air. I simply made the point that running a for-profit company requires different skills which do not translate well to running a government, and I gave a few examples of the many significant distinctions between the two tasks.

Thus, success in business is not a valid litmus test for success in government, or for understanding the overall economic picture. Indeed, why do you think so many CEOs have MBAs, rather than degrees in economics? You still have not actually addressed my point, challenged my examples, or offered counter-examples. There's only one thing missing: if you would just be so kind as to invoke Hitler, then I could declare an unequivocal KO.
 
 
Sep 20, 2008
Stomper - this gets better and better. You are a lawyer.

Are you seriously going to stand atop your shakedown, for-profit black walnut desk and lecture me about who is most qualified to be president?! I can just picture your John Edwards photo next to your Yale juris doctor printout.

This country doesn't survive without business. Furthermore, without business, there is no Stomper & Associates.

Stomper - you spend your life wringing your hands and demonizing companies. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

You know, you're right. Forget those "idiots" who can run multi-million-dollar companies; let's get someone in there who has never worked in the private sector and is dedicated to growing government and self-preservation.




 
 
Sep 20, 2008
Funnish:

I am a lawyer with more than 20 years experience trying cases in which CEOs are suing or being sued. I have represented small companies with only 1-4 shareholders, and I have represented a Fortune 50 company. I have also sued similarly small and gargantuan companies. I have analyzed corporate accounts and SEC filings, and I have cross-examined CEOs about their flaws and their limits. How many CEOs have you evaluated?

So your ad hominem attack kinda falls flat. Got any more arrows in your quiver -- like say, an actual argument explaining why the CEO of a for-profit company is necessarily qualified to run the country (or at least the economy)?
 
 
Sep 19, 2008
Stomper - spoken like a real elitist. It's almost as if the prosecution didn't even need to show up to the courtroom, you did such a great job convicting yourself.

Seriously, your last paragraph says it all:
"The required skill-sets are not the same, and it is foolish to delude yourself or others into thinking that being a CEO somehow qualifies someone to do anything more than run a business."

Are you freaking kidding me? Anything more than run a business? You sir, have clearly never been in a leadership position.

Go back to your government job.

 
 
Sep 19, 2008
I don't want to hear anything like this from you until the dilbert strip is funny again. These last few days have been atrocious. It might be that lame female character, but the head explode one makes me think otherwise. Honestly, "cleanup in aisle three?" That's the punchline? argh.
 
 
Sep 19, 2008
Redkite:

Yeah, I started reading Asimov as a kid. I picked it up right away.
 
 
Sep 19, 2008
As a Dibert and Scott fan I am glad to see so much valuable comments, other blogs I read every day are the one from Dani Rodrik and Chris Blattman, I wonder if they would comment on your great job Scott.

I agree to the idea that even scholars are human being, in short and in a dichotomist way I think that:

- well educated people think rationally when they have data to analyze, but emotionally when they can only guess.

- Less educated people thin emotionally what ever.

Of course we can temperate it because forecasts are made on previous data, but Lehman Brothers jobless guys and girls should agree that forecasts are not fully scientific stuffs.

To get back to the basic and thinking to Pascal’s pensees we can imagine that economists are in majority mathematical minds, therefore less acute when it comes to estimations, they would probably more rely on past data, and past data just bring light to the path behind.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 19, 2008
Does anyone else get this guy's user name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Daneel_Olivaw
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 19, 2008
I found the survey and the following discussion really interesting (especially because I am an economist).

In particular, the conclusion by Dilbert that:

''[…] you should expect [economists] to cross party lines when the data is clear and understood, and to lean toward party loyalties when things get fuzzy. That's how humans are wired. We like our team.''

is really a good news to me…

Actually these Dilbert's survey result is really similar to the one I and a co-author got conducting a survey on Italian economists' opinions. Interesting, isn't it?


If you are interested in our survey's results have a look at

http://micdimaio.googlepages.com/surveyofitalianeconomists

Ciao,
michele
 
 
Sep 18, 2008
Just sending the rest of the comments to my email.
 
 
Sep 18, 2008
Just posting so the comments can be sent to my email box.
 
 
Sep 18, 2008
Phantom II 2008.

You're right, Scott. Clear thinking does make one happy.

 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 18, 2008
For some reason, the term "s-k-i-l-l -- s-e-t" got bleeped out of my last post. Has that become some new, urban slang term while I wasn't looking?
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Sep 18, 2008
Phantom II: No, you missed the point. Olivaw's post certainly included his observation/opinion that most economists are found at the moderate ends of their parties (like any normal distribution curve), but this was not essential to the conclusion you actually agreed with: Most economists are people, who will value policies according to their own subjective priorities, rather than any objective criteria -- because there aren't any. Olivaw chose to talk in terms of efficiency v. equity, but those are mere labels of convenience. You misinterpreted those labels.

The economy is made up of businesses, but most CEO's are NOT required to be evaluate the economy as a whole. They tend to be specialized micro-economists who know their own business, the industry in which it performs, and the customers it serves. There is nothing about being a CEO that qualifies someone to understand the economy as a whole, or to manage it.

This is a common fallacy from the Right, in which success in business is touted as a qualification for success in politics (or im managing the economy). The qualifications and !$%*!$%*!$%*! are simply not the same.

A President does not get to hand-pick most or all of congress, unlike the way a CEO hand-picks most or all of his Board of Directors. A CEO has much more authority than the President, as a CEO does not need permission from Congress to implement a new policy, or even completely change the direction of his company. A CEO is actually rewarded for making decisions that benefit his company at the expense of a competitor, while a President must generally limit the adverse impact of his policies -- both internally, and on other ("competing") nations.

The required skill-sets are not the same, and it is foolish to delude yourself or others into thinking that being a CEO somehow qualifies someone to do anything more than run a business.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog