I don’t think I’d be so cynical about politicians while being so optimistic about economists’ motivations! I’m not as pessimistic as Rodrik but I think there’s some truth to it:

“It is cleverness, not wisdom, that advances academic economists’
careers. Professors at the top universities distinguish themselves today
not by being right about the real world, but by devising imaginative
theoretical twists or developing novel evidence. If these skills also
render them perceptive observers of real societies and provide them with
sound judgment, it is hardly by design.”

I think the thing about politicians is that while they do address the same problems as economists their incentives are very different. They want votes and they will do whatever they think will get them votes, no matter how bad it may be for the economy. The problem that an economist sees as economic the politician sees as political and sets out to provide a political answer and bad politics always wins over good economics.

Yah 🙂

Ah, I see, so we’re really just talking about different styles of
rhetoric for different audiences? I can see why differences in the
implications of each would bother you.

I don’t see a contradiction – because I am talking about him using two types of language to share ideas.

He uses economics, when talking to economists, to frame ideas and trade-offs in such a way we find reasonable for a discussion – and where the assumptions are clear. In that context we all have a discussion and its lovely.

He then uses a whole different form of rhetoric when selling his policy conclusions to the public – one I believe is misleading regarding the underlying assumptions he has made, but is undeniably more persuasive for an audience that hasn’t had the training in viewing economic arguments in this light. Given it is an argument on the same underlying principles, it is an issue of sales – and I find the attacks on other economists who have equally valid (and often more heavily empirically supported) views tiresome in this context.

In this context, it is easy to separate the rhetoric he uses for non-economists and what he thinks – as we have a clear observation of him using the economic method, and economist-economist rhetoric to define what and why he thinks something.

My ideal of a politician would degree. But many politicians are far more reactive, and interested in showing intent rather than actually trying to match the social wil.

Something I will say. NZ politicians are closer to my ideal than many places, often they are interested in maximising surplus, but they are constrained by the sometime ill informed ideology of their constituents.

But even then, constantly there are arguments which go “here is a benefit, oww you are saying there is a cost, that is because you eat children and are paid by the other side”. These arguments have been constant recently, and my patience for politicians talking that sort of crap has worn thin 😉

Can you separate the ‘rhetoric’ from what he thinks? Is the framing not a part of the idea? Are you taking on McCloskey head on here, or am I just misinterpreting you?

What I agree with in the Rodrik piece is the way he looks at the method of “doing economics” as a great toolbox for looking at issues.

Where I disagree is probably two-fold: 1) his priors when he comes to look at a question (he seems more like to come to a question believing in failure), 2) with the way he does his Bayesian updating when it comes to combining tendencies from models (he seems to allow his set of models to shift his priors in a more forceful fashion than I would). Combine those, and you have a direct reason for why we have differing views on the effectiveness of policy, given the same methods and data!