Do good economists need to be right wing?

[buritobr]

I have already heard both right wing economists and left wing graduates in other social sciences saying something like  economist = right wing
Actually, many basic economic models show that state intervention creates misallocation of resources.

But I don't think it is true that economists need to be right wing. There are economists on the left of the mainstream economics (marxist, post-keynesian economists) and also economists on the right of the mainstream economics (Austrian).
Most mainstream economists are new keynesian or new classical. Almost all new classical economists, like Lucas, Barro, Sargent and Presscott are conservative. Some new keynesian economists, like Mankiw, are conservative too.
But many new keynesian economists are very progressive. James Tobin, Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are good examples. They agree that the state should intervene in order to reduce income inequality and to stabilize fluctuations, and they are still mainstream economists.

Basic models show that state intervention = misallocation of resources, but more sophisticated models can show market imperfections and show that the state could help in order to make the markets work better. Besides, it is not necessary to believe in the Marx theory of the surplus value in order to think that a very unequal income distribution is unfair. One could believe that an unequal income distribution is unfair even if one believes that wages = marginal product of labor.

[King]

lol

[Ebsy]

I thought most economists were centre-left.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No.

[Foucaulf]

More serious answer:

I don't think it is true that economists need to be right wing. There are economists on the left of the mainstream economics (marxist, post-keynesian economists) and also economists on the right of the mainstream economics (Austrian).

Most of them aren't; you can do macro and be left-wing without being a wingbat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is more to economics than macro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tobin's not a New Keynesian. Stiglitz's work isn't strictly macro. Krugman's macro research is still mostly focused on trade, apart from his interest in liquidity traps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that this post is all over place. There are many ways that economists contribute to policy that goes beyond the "muh fiscal policy" angle, whether it's labour, antitrust, education, monetary policy or insurance. There's plenty of government in the U.S. already, and what gets talked about less is tweaking state intervention already in place - until it seriously threatens some group's interests. You would do better to think outside this cycle.

[AggregateDemand]

Economists are not naturally "right-wing". Right-wing economists are created by incompetent and dangerous central-planners who jeopardize the progress of our species.

[ag]

Anyone, who confuses ideology and economics is not a good economist. As citizens we have views on how we would like the society be.  As economists we have views on what would be consequences of such or other policies. And confusing the two is not a good thing.

Now, it would be hard to find an good economist who does not much like free trade, for instance. Or would advocate price controls on most goods. Not because of the "left", or "right", but because there are very few circumstances out there where sane objectives cold be achieved by such policies. Markets have many attractive features - even if you are an convinced socialist.

[RINO Tom]

Obviously not ... but the business community as a whole - especially finance - does lean conservative for rather obvious reasons.

Economics is probably the most "liberal" (in many schools it's not part of the business school), as many then move into a more academic role.

[136or142]

No.

However, since Milton Friedman got a couple things correct on the relationship between inflation and unemployment, every right wing halfwit likes to think they're an expert in economics simply because they are right wing.

[RFayette]

No.

However, since Milton Friedman got a couple things correct on the relationship between inflation and unemployment, every right wing halfwit likes to think they're an expert in economics simply because they are right wing.

This.....while most academic economists are pretty centrist or slightly left on fiscal issues (they trend Democratic largely due to social issues & foreign policy), there are a lot of amateur/hobbyist economists (no phD but possibly a BA) and they tend to be quite right-wing on average [think the people who unravel unemployment statistics or rant against quantitative easing].

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

[AggregateDemand]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

What happens to some successful economists is the god-complex. They imagine clairvoyance and power they don't have, which makes them willing to gamble societies well-being to prove a point about their school and their abilities as economists.

Perhaps we have reached a point where min wage could be increased without substantial job loss, but why would we gamble with societal utility to make a pointless political statement about 1960s Keynesian economics? We have much better policy tools that require the government to insure domestic tranquility and promote general welfare, rather than lazily dumping those responsibilities on corporate America, as liberals are wont to do.

Stiglitz and Krugman have the god-complex. Some right-wing economists have a proclivity to worship free-markets as a sort of god, which creates similar societal outcomes, though the professional conceit is much different.

[ag]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

[ag]

but why would we gamble with societal utility

Are you a Communist, or what?

[RFayette]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

I know that, but those tend not to be the focus of higher-level economics, right?  I was referring more to the focus of lower-level vs. higher-level in addition to the conclusions drawn.  I know there's a lot more debate about the minimum wage in more advanced economics classes, while it's clearly cast in a negative light in a basic economics class.

Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists.

AggregateDemand, it can go both ways......in some ways it's better to have complex models taking many factors into account, but there is a lot of value to focusing on the fundamentals.  A lot of the simpler climate models did a better job predicting temperature than the more complex ones.  I think the "god complex" is a bit extreme of a thing to say.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

I know that, but those tend not to be the focus of higher-level economics, right?  I was referring more to the focus of lower-level vs. higher-level in addition to the conclusions drawn.  I know there's a lot more debate about the minimum wage in more advanced economics classes, while it's clearly cast in a negative light in a basic economics class.

Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists.

AggregateDemand, it can go both ways......in some ways it's better to have complex models taking many factors into account, but there is a lot of value to focusing on the fundamentals.  A lot of the simpler climate models did a better job predicting temperature than the more complex ones.  I think the "god complex" is a bit extreme of a thing to say.

A majority of econ grad students are self-identified liberals. If I recall correctly, the study I saw showed an approximately 50-10 liberal/conservative split. At Yale and Harvard, it was closer to 60/6-7.

Does this mean that they're left-wing? Not really but it's proof that most younger economists tend to tilt towards the left. For what it's worth, every economics professor I've had has been progressive.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Econ PhD's are specifically researching and training to be in academia in a large majority of cases. Not exactly an unbiased sample of the economically intelligent (not that that's possible to find - most will act in their self-interest).

[RFayette]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

I know that, but those tend not to be the focus of higher-level economics, right?  I was referring more to the focus of lower-level vs. higher-level in addition to the conclusions drawn.  I know there's a lot more debate about the minimum wage in more advanced economics classes, while it's clearly cast in a negative light in a basic economics class.

Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists.

AggregateDemand, it can go both ways......in some ways it's better to have complex models taking many factors into account, but there is a lot of value to focusing on the fundamentals.  A lot of the simpler climate models did a better job predicting temperature than the more complex ones.  I think the "god complex" is a bit extreme of a thing to say.

A majority of econ grad students are self-identified liberals. If I recall correctly, the study I saw showed an approximately 50-10 liberal/conservative split. At Yale and Harvard, it was closer to 60/6-7.

Does this mean that they're left-wing? Not really but it's proof that most younger economists tend to tilt towards the left. For what it's worth, every economics professor I've had has been progressive.

It's interesting, because the trend for people with an Econ BA/BS is the opposite. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/studying-economics-in-col_n_603180.html?

There definitely seems to be a dichotomy between undergrad vs grad school in econ; granted, even for grad school, I bet the average Econ phD student would be further right than the median phD student.

[136or142]

"Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists."



We covered the Card and ? study on the impact of a minimum wage rise in New Jersey in our 200 level labour economics class.

Regarding economics PhDs and academia. Anecdotal of course, but the only two economics PhDs I'm aware of are two former NDP politicians, Dave Schreck, who had a PhD in health economics and Matt Toner who has been mentioned on another thread in this forum.  Schreck went into health care management for unions becoming the General Manager of CU & C Health Services and Toner became a trade diplomat.

Schreck now runs the website strategicthoughts.com which is worth reading and rather numbers heavy, but isn't about economics.

[King]

It's interesting, because the trend for people with an Econ BA/BS is the opposite. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/studying-economics-in-col_n_603180.html?

There definitely seems to be a dichotomy between undergrad vs grad school in econ; granted, even for grad school, I bet the average Econ phD student would be further right than the median phD student.

A lot of people get BA/BS Econ as a pre-business school degree. Those are likely where the conservatives are heading while liberals go the PhD route.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

I know that, but those tend not to be the focus of higher-level economics, right?  I was referring more to the focus of lower-level vs. higher-level in addition to the conclusions drawn.  I know there's a lot more debate about the minimum wage in more advanced economics classes, while it's clearly cast in a negative light in a basic economics class.

Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists.

AggregateDemand, it can go both ways......in some ways it's better to have complex models taking many factors into account, but there is a lot of value to focusing on the fundamentals.  A lot of the simpler climate models did a better job predicting temperature than the more complex ones.  I think the "god complex" is a bit extreme of a thing to say.

A majority of econ grad students are self-identified liberals. If I recall correctly, the study I saw showed an approximately 50-10 liberal/conservative split. At Yale and Harvard, it was closer to 60/6-7.

Does this mean that they're left-wing? Not really but it's proof that most younger economists tend to tilt towards the left. For what it's worth, every economics professor I've had has been progressive.

It's interesting, because the trend for people with an Econ BA/BS is the opposite. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/studying-economics-in-col_n_603180.html?

There definitely seems to be a dichotomy between undergrad vs grad school in econ; granted, even for grad school, I bet the average Econ phD student would be further right than the median phD student.

     I think it might have quite a bit to do with the communities involved. Like many folks in college, I imagine Econ students fancy themselves progressive. In many ways maybe they are, but they probably tend further right than they realize due to the number of right-wing positions that are not seriously disputed within the economic community (as mentioned in this thread, things like free trade and opposition to rent control).

[AggregateDemand]

but why would we gamble with societal utility

Are you a Communist, or what?

Aren't most economists utilitarians? We're not usually communitarians, though, and the dividing line between the utilitarians is Kaldor-Hicks v Pareto.

[ag]

but why would we gamble with societal utility

Are you a Communist, or what?

Aren't most economists utilitarians?

No.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

I know that, but those tend not to be the focus of higher-level economics, right?  I was referring more to the focus of lower-level vs. higher-level in addition to the conclusions drawn.  I know there's a lot more debate about the minimum wage in more advanced economics classes, while it's clearly cast in a negative light in a basic economics class.

Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists.

AggregateDemand, it can go both ways......in some ways it's better to have complex models taking many factors into account, but there is a lot of value to focusing on the fundamentals.  A lot of the simpler climate models did a better job predicting temperature than the more complex ones.  I think the "god complex" is a bit extreme of a thing to say.

A majority of econ grad students are self-identified liberals. If I recall correctly, the study I saw showed an approximately 50-10 liberal/conservative split. At Yale and Harvard, it was closer to 60/6-7.

Does this mean that they're left-wing? Not really but it's proof that most younger economists tend to tilt towards the left. For what it's worth, every economics professor I've had has been progressive.

It's interesting, because the trend for people with an Econ BA/BS is the opposite. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/studying-economics-in-col_n_603180.html?

There definitely seems to be a dichotomy between undergrad vs grad school in econ; granted, even for grad school, I bet the average Econ phD student would be further right than the median phD student.

     I think it might have quite a bit to do with the communities involved. Like many folks in college, I imagine Econ students fancy themselves progressive. In many ways maybe they are, but they probably tend further right than they realize due to the number of right-wing positions that are not seriously disputed within the economic community (as mentioned in this thread, things like free trade and opposition to rent control).

Free trade is more disputed within the economic community than is realized by the public. Obviously, economists are averse to protectionism but "progressive" economists have a pretty nuanced view of most free trade agreements which ranges from indifference (Krugman) to staunch opposition (Stiglitz). I'd say the same thing about rent control.

On principle, economists support free trade and oppose rent control. However, the devil is in the details.

[AggregateDemand]

Free trade is more disputed within the economic community than is realized by the public. Obviously, economists are averse to protectionism but "progressive" economists have a pretty nuanced view of most free trade agreements which ranges from indifference (Krugman) to staunch opposition (Stiglitz). I'd say the same thing about rent control.

On principle, economists support free trade and oppose rent control. However, the devil is in the details.

Stiglitz is against the free movement of capital. He's only against international trade, if imports are fueled by foreign direct investment with domestic capital. He think the capital should remain domestic and labor should move without limits.

It's absurd, but he likes to promote the idea.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Part of this is because to my understanding, intro economics classes tend toward right-wing conclusions (like minimum wage & rent control are bad) whereas higher-level economics courses take a lot more variables into consideration.

Rent controls ARE, usually, bad, even if you are a left-winger

I know that, but those tend not to be the focus of higher-level economics, right?  I was referring more to the focus of lower-level vs. higher-level in addition to the conclusions drawn.  I know there's a lot more debate about the minimum wage in more advanced economics classes, while it's clearly cast in a negative light in a basic economics class.

Of course rent controls are bad, and I believe the minimum wage is too for the most part.  I was just trying to give my hypothesis for why phD economists seem to be more liberal than BA/BS/"self-educated" economists.

AggregateDemand, it can go both ways......in some ways it's better to have complex models taking many factors into account, but there is a lot of value to focusing on the fundamentals.  A lot of the simpler climate models did a better job predicting temperature than the more complex ones.  I think the "god complex" is a bit extreme of a thing to say.

A majority of econ grad students are self-identified liberals. If I recall correctly, the study I saw showed an approximately 50-10 liberal/conservative split. At Yale and Harvard, it was closer to 60/6-7.

Does this mean that they're left-wing? Not really but it's proof that most younger economists tend to tilt towards the left. For what it's worth, every economics professor I've had has been progressive.

It's interesting, because the trend for people with an Econ BA/BS is the opposite. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/studying-economics-in-col_n_603180.html?

There definitely seems to be a dichotomy between undergrad vs grad school in econ; granted, even for grad school, I bet the average Econ phD student would be further right than the median phD student.

     I think it might have quite a bit to do with the communities involved. Like many folks in college, I imagine Econ students fancy themselves progressive. In many ways maybe they are, but they probably tend further right than they realize due to the number of right-wing positions that are not seriously disputed within the economic community (as mentioned in this thread, things like free trade and opposition to rent control).

Free trade is more disputed within the economic community than is realized by the public. Obviously, economists are averse to protectionism but "progressive" economists have a pretty nuanced view of most free trade agreements which ranges from indifference (Krugman) to staunch opposition (Stiglitz). I'd say the same thing about rent control.

On principle, economists support free trade and oppose rent control. However, the devil is in the details.

     Yes, the devil usually is in the details. I'm sure that not all economists endorse these views, but the discussion is framed differently in ways that lead towards more right-wing conclusions on these subjects.