Yeah I certainly didn’t mean to be hating on economists if that’s how it came off – or libertarians, I have certain sympathies with their issues. Shamubeel’s post I’m very supportive of. Those faux intellectuals do need to be called out.
I can understand the consistent frustration with the distortion of issues, I just found the Coddington article cringe-worthy.

I agree, I even started out my previous comment saying I agree, I just don’t like the “gummint” part. My interpretation is that it’s a swipe at people who can barely speak properly, let alone form a sound opinion of appropriate public policy. There are alternative interpretations, but the tone of the Coddington article doesn’t suggest to me that they are correct. For example:

“when it comes to government-speak. “Grow the economy” means “spend more taxpayers’ money”; “develop the country” is licence to get involved in business ventures about which they have few clues – broadcasting, airlines, railways, venture finance. And “protect the environment” is an excuse to spend public millions on buying up private land which the taxpayers themselves are then excluded from using. Meanwhile, private property rights are breached with impunity.”

Is this satire? Thankfully we have her to translate this foreign language. The idea that anyone would consider this stuff arguable isn’t even on the table, let alone be democratically popular. But what can we expect when 18% of school leavers are illiterate? And for heavens sake the political parties just pander to those fools.

Let me point out again I agree with your post, it’s much more reasonable.

Reading it myself, and with my hats on, I don’t see it as a criticism of the masses – economists love the idea of price, as they see it as an additional bow in helping the masses express democratic preferences.

Instead I read it as a critique of those faux intellectuals who turn up in the paper saying “I’ve decided there is a problem, and we should do something!”. This type of attention seeking and determination to pick random problems until you get one that lands offers misinformation for the public, and as a result deserves to be treated in a demeaning way.

Contrary to how we look, economists have a lot of respect for individuals – hence why we decided to study a social science. We just get frustrated at misinformation and institutions that work to provide misinformation or restrict choice.

Not sure what to reply to this. I dont think I am an elitist twit, but I could certainly be in someone’s opinion.

The point, which perhaps didnt get through, is that there are so many demands on politics that quality policy making is being sacrificed. The demands, as for example in housing affordability, are legitimate. But the policy reactions have to be much more measured and directed at the fundamental drivers. Otherwise we end up with a mess of policies, that dont solve the problem, but may lead to new ones.

The language should have been far more precise. When I say boundaries, I mean rules and regulations. Matt and I wont agree on exactly how much rules and regulations is optimal, but neither of us believe that the government should be entirely hands off.

There are very good reasons why we need to price externalities etc.

But if a policy is to be successful, it needs to start from and react to fundamental drivers.

I hope I’m right – as that is always fun. But as you say, Shamubeel will be the best judge of what he meant 🙂

I wonder if you are correct there ( it sounded like he was stating “from where we are, we need to make sure we have some idea of what a policy is trying to achieve and why to make sensible policy”.) – lets hope he comes back and explains. Some, like Deborah C, argue that there are areas that governments should have no policy in, while you have argued that S.E. is really saying we just need to be clear about what (any?) policy is seeking to achieve. I suspect there is a wide gap between the two. As I say, lets hope the author elaborates.

I suspect that “boundaries” mean a very different thing to Shaz and me than they may imply when you’ve spotted them here – which is understandable.

Remember, the endowment of resources constitutes a boundary in this sense – and competition law constitutes a further boundary. When I read what Shamubeel was saying, it sounded like he was stating “from where we are, we need to make sure we have some idea of what a policy is trying to achieve and why to make sensible policy”.

In this way, he is more discussing the margin of change from the status quo, not the argument of what we should do given no government!

Language is a pain though, oft times I feel like I’ve said the same thing twice – but the two things will be taken in very different ways!