How can perceptions of a strong distribution of opinion among leading economists in the media be reconciled with the results of the Booth polls of strong consensus on most issues? To understand the behaviour of economists and journalists, economists` first instinct is to focus on the incentives that each group undergoes. From this point of view, the opposite perceptions are quickly useful. You could extrapolate that if the economists who advise the management of the company have not achieved the best results, what can we expect from them, advise the government? The perception of polarized opinions is particularly important to economists, but it is certainly not limited to economists. The same obvious lack of consensus among university scientists is manifested, for example, in the media coverage of global warming. 53% of newspaper articles on global warming over a 15-year period in the United States paid “about the same attention” to arguments for and against human activities that contribute to global warming (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). This standard of journalistic balance has emerged, although a survey of 928 press articles on the subject shows about the same period that no one thought humans were contributing to global warming (Oreskes 2004). It`s literally the dumbest column with the word “economy” I`ve ever read. 1. Consensus? Seriously? Is there a single Austrian school economist in this body? 3. How does this show anything other than the selfish bias of the dominant school of economic thought? At graduate school, I spoke to a friend who had a bachelor`s degree in economics. She said no one has talked about Hayek or Bastiat in four years.
She had never heard her names. So the vast majority of economists of the tiny sample size here agree on issues that are totally secondary, and they are very confident in their own decisions. Call Aaron Sorkin. You two may have a “I hainl for self-proclaimed” part. The fact is that academic economists all tend to agree on left-wing policies for the economy. A survey of private sector economists who make money in the real world, I suppose, would show another consensus. Or think of the widely despised bank bailouts. Populist politicians on both sides have chosen to slap them on the table (in many cases only after voting for them). But while public opinion may not like them, there is a striking consensus that they have helped: the same poll revealed that no economist was willing to challenge the idea that bailouts reduce unemployment…
Do you remember the Republican fear that Obama raised gas prices in one way or another, a development newt Gingrich wanted to reverse? There is simply no support among economists for this view. They agreed that “market factors,” not energy policy, are driving changes in gas prices. I would like to see the sample expanded to 400 university economists. This would eliminate some of the speculation that the sample is being picked to illustrate a particular point of view. I am tired of economists and politicians talking about the economy using “consensus” as justification. The economy is not a matter of consensus. It is about supply, demand and incentives. What is the level of the job supply? What is the demand for jobs? Is the government increasing or increasing the supply of jobs? What have the economic recovery and the rescue of the banks done for the incentives? These are the questions that economists should answer. Whether the government should do that is a philosophical, not an economic, question. Just because the government can influence the economy does not mean they should. I have never seen the gap between the political debate on the economy and the consensus of economists as great as they are today. And I think it`s incredibly damaging.
Instead of having a serious discussion on how best to end the current economic collapse, Congress is blocked, one of the great