Please turn on JavaScript

Brooks Wilson's Economics Blog: Experts Vs. Partisans (Repost I)

Friday, August 28, 2009

Experts Vs. Partisans (Repost I)

I love college football; my favorite team is Southern Cal and it has been since I was ten. I love tailgating before the game, and walking into the stadium in a wave of cardinal. Then the game starts. USC defers to the second half. Ray Maualuga smacks a back for a five yard loss and the band plays Conquest. Mark Sanchez hits Patrick Turner on a slant up the middle for a thirty yard gain and the band plays Conquest. The band plays Conquest a lot. After the game, the players, the band, and the fans gather at one end of the stadium to chant traditional cheers, often led by players. I love being a fan and surrounded by other fans.

If I had money on the game, I would not listen to my fellow fans; I wouldn’t even trust my own opinion. As a fan, I have too much skin in the game. With money on the line, I would look at a computer model, or read what an expert or experts say. I would also try to get a consensus opinion of experts by looking at the Las Vegas betting line, or prediction markets. Experts and aggregations of experts somehow stay above the fray and remain objective.

There is a similar relationship between economists, politicians, and citizens; economists are the experts and politicians are the players, the media, the band, and voters, the fans. Politicians and voters are partisans, allegiance to the team comes before objectivity. Politicians enact policy through law, and economists study the impact of policy and advise politicians. Politicians need good positive economics to achieve their normative goals. But if I were a politician, I would like to know my advisors had my back, and would not hire an advisor unwilling to show allegiance to me.

Economists advising politicians walk a fine line between holding to their science and remaining objective, or becoming partisans. Occasionally, a good advisor might contradict the politicians they advise as did Greg Mankiw when he said,
Romney has had to distance himself from his top economics adviser after Mankiw _ a Princeton-trained economist now teaching at Harvard _ voiced his support for an immigration bill Romney strongly opposes [1].
At some point, an economist must become a partisan, or at least bite his tongue when his team supports policy that contradicts good science as Greg Mankiw did when he supported tax cuts that important Bush administration officials said would raise tax revenues. Mankiw is on the record as stating that tax cuts don’t increase tax revenue. He took incoming fire from fellow economists for his silence, but defended himself by parsing words, noting that, “Being opposed to a tax cut as a policy and being critical of an argument for tax cuts are two different things. [2]” In response to Mankiw’s relative silence and awkward position on the revenue impact of the tax cut, Brad DeLong noted,
Mankiw was indeed correct in thinking that he personally could do more good for the country and the world working inside than if he were to march up to Dick Cheney, tell him "you have to stop saying that tax cuts raise revenues," and so get fired. But the Bush administration did frequently argue that tax cuts raised revenue. And there is the much harder question: is it worth the sacrifice of the economics profession's outside credibility and the further confusion of the public that is entailed when good economists defend bad policies on the outside that they are working to change on the inside? I don't know the answer to that.
The world has need for both experts and partisans, and it is difficult to do both simultaneously. Anyone who reads my blog for any period of time will note that I do not like economists surrendering their science for partisanship. I believe that most economists share my sentiments. I hope that I can be fair. Best wishes to the Obama economics team that now must walk that fine line.

[1] Glen Johnson, “Romney Finds Advisors Both Help And Hurt,” The Washington Post, June 19, 2007.

[2] Nathan Strauss, “Mankiw Defends Tax Cut Stance, Faces Online Flak,” The Harvard Crimson, July 13, 2007.

80 comments:

  1. Melissa McCall29/8/09 11:48 AM

    I agree with your closing statements. I too , believe that if an economists' job is to advise the country of how we should spend our money to better our financial situation than he/she should speak out. Whether his job would be on the line is a personal contest. With their noramtive statements to the public, sometimes the politician in which they are to advise just might be hapless in trying to get their oppinion justified. Let's face it, SOME politicians are known to be fabricators and I would much rather put my trust and money into an expert in the subjuct than a politician trying to win votes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also agree with your closing statements. I believe that an economist should not surrender their science for partisanship. An economist job is to study the impact of the law and advise the politician. If a politician is making false remarks about what a law will do I believe that the economist should stand up and say something. Instead of not saying anything especially when the law will have a negative impact on our society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tyler Fadal4/10/09 3:51 PM

    I completely agree with you. Economists shouldn't surrender their science for partisanship because if they do that they will soon be supporting things that their political party supports instead of supporting what's right. Surrendering science for partisanship will make them bias, and they will lose their objectivity in evaluating and analyzing things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lyntoria Davis said....

    I completely agree with you. I feel that if an enconomist and their party believe that something is wrong, than it is wrong. I don't think any economist should surrender their beliefs to avoid being judged or possibly being wrong. If an economist does put their party under the bus than they are in the wrong business.

    ReplyDelete
  5. rebecca kolosci14/1/10 10:30 AM

    I totally agree. I don't believe polticians need to try to take on the role of the economists. When there are votes at stake instead of the true welfare of everyone then they become incorrect in their choices. Also, economists need to be aware that their beliefs in what is correct may not always correspond with what is favorable to everyone and be prepared to do what is right rather than what is expected.

    ReplyDelete
  6. M Hardeman15/1/10 5:16 PM

    This seems to be a win/lose, lose/win situation. I think I best understand it when I put myself into the place of a politician. I would want the sharpest economic mind, scientifically, in my camp. I would want the best, most comprehensive understanding of what effects policies would actually have. But, I also would not keep anyone in my corner, that didn't "have my back", figuratively. If I, as the politician, had to go with a normative that did, in fact, contradict what my economic advising had suggested, I would understand why my economist would disagree, but I would then want the best advice and guidance based on whatever political decisions the party felt it had to make, almost like damage control, or second best scenario. It would take a great deal of compromise on the part of the economist, without actually compromising themselves. Again, win/lose...lose/win... or maybe just a balance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree that an economist needs to rely on their beliefs and their science when making decisions. If they choose to do what is expected, they are in the wrong business. When one is entering the field of economics as a profession, one should know and understand what they are getting themselves into if they choose to work in the political arena as an economist. If they aren't willing to do what the science of economics calls for as an honest economist, they probably shouldn't be in that field. If I were a politician, I would want an honest economist, not a "puppet" economist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rachel Ledbetter16/1/10 10:49 AM

    I agree that economists should stick to what they believe and what they know. If they went with what everyone else wanted all the time, they could in the long run effect human society as a whole. When an economists believes something is wrong or has a statement about something that isn't favorable they should still state their concerns for the simple purpose of being heard and possibly changing other people's minds. I would want to know how someone truly feels about something rather than just knowing they kept quiet because they didn't want to step out of line.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Patricia Gager17/1/10 11:26 AM

    Personally, I have more respect for economists that stand up for the facts that support their expertise, rather than wilt under the pressures of a particular politician. As a voter, I would rather have the facts coming from a honest, nonbiased economist in order to make a good decision at the voting booth. After all, like having money on a game, economists have our money and future on the line.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Analyn C. Sanders22/1/10 5:14 PM

    I believe that Economists should be unbiased. They should report studies that are only have basis and data to back them up. They should not give in to pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ariel Bates said...
    I agree with the statement that all the economists or the "experts" should be unbiased and that they should express their true opinion in the beginning and all the way through the end and stick to it, rather then changing their beliefs to meet the requirements of everyone else's wants.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mark Morrison...

    Economists should stand up for what they think is right even if it may not be popular among his employers. Integrity is more important than an appointment. Mankiw was asked to give his opinion, and shouldn't have been worried about the repercussions of his statements.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rosalva Medina21/2/10 10:51 PM

    Ecomomists should voice their opinions as long as they know how to back it up. Politicians know how to win over people, economists know how to win over money. Since people follow the politician more than their fellow ecomomist, the politician should take into account what the economist is reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gabe Edwards23/2/10 8:23 PM

    I completely agree with your closing statements. An economist should never bite his tongue for partisanship. It should not be a popularity contest. If an economist knows what is right or wrong, the economist should tell people, after they are the professionals. I guess I can partially see where they are coming from, not wanting to lose their jobs, but if they are truly good economists than more jobs will come. After all, if you were a Detriot Lions fan you wouldn't put $1,000 on a game against the Colts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. brittnie white29/4/10 10:40 PM

    economists should do their research and share their findings, and if someone is manipulating the data to twist it to their own bidding then the economists should speak up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with what you said that you have to put down your partisanship and do what is right for the country. As we have learned countless times in your class that people face trade offs. This is one of those times. As an economist of the President, you must be able to stand up and do what you believe is right even if it puts your job in jeopardy. And as a betting man myself I dont know if I would vote for USC to make it to a bowl game these next two years.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pamela saucedo3/9/10 2:13 PM

    I believe that Economists should be unbiased and I have more respect for economists that stand up for the facts that support their expertise, rather than give in under the pressures of a particular politician. Economists should stand up for what they think is right even if it may not be popular among his employers, or anyone else.. if they are there to do a certain job.. I would want to know that they are secure in what they think and would not want to surrender their science for any partisanship.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I seem to agree with you. Politicians need economists to be on there side, however they need their economist to be silient if he finds areas he does not agree with. This is a trade off with holding an important position like this. You must give up certain things to obtain others. I belive this kind of partisanship happens in many faucets of goverenment.

    Jarrett Roberts

    ReplyDelete
  19. Curtis Anderau

    I believe that as an Economist you must remain loyal to the science and your findings. It is an overused statement, but "numbers don't lie". If his findings in this situation were that tax cuts brought in less revenue then that is just what happened. It would be better to lose your employment for standing up for what is right,then lieing and possibly still be without that position becuase you gave unsound advice. Only in government could someone hire someone for their expertise, and then tell them they are wrong when their findings don't match your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. My husband, a huge partison of the Cowboys, bets on the Cowboys every week no matter what. I wish he had an economist to advise him!!

    With that being said, I don't believe our country is in any shape to not listen to a highly educated economist such as Mankiw. It's time that we forget the popularity contest and get this country back together. Our debt is at $13,418,422,204,631....wait 13,418,427,092,431..and growing. And by the time anyone else reads this it will have grown even more. Check out usdebtclock.org. Compare to figure I just posted and it gives a quick grasp of how much we need to listen to economists NOW!!! Maybe it's time for all of our politicians to start backing some of our economists, instead of our economists backing our politicians. Please economists speak out loud and clear on the facts! You are the experts and our country needs you. How can we fix this?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anailia Cuellar-Saens5/9/10 6:26 PM

    An economist must not " bite his tongue" to save only his job because not saying the true findings can always come back and affect everybody including the economist. I believe they should share all of the information they have found because it affects the entire country in many ways. People that are not experts are not aware of everything that happens in this country, that is why economist have become those experts to share their information.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Janet Bigham5/9/10 7:49 PM

    I think that if the economists hold their studies strongly and firmly then the politicians should refrain from comments and/or actions. Since the economists has studied great depths in their field of study the politician should concentrate more of the political issues rather than how society survives. If the politicians concentrated more on efficiency and equality maybe they could help out on our deficit. That is more of their responsibility. Limiting food stamp recipients and capping medicaid benefits would be a great start.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Elaine Owen ..

    In a perfect world, everyone would listen to the expert economists and follow their advice; but as we all know that doesn't happen. Economists become partisans in order to do one thing, keep their job. Just like you would agree with your boss about what mustard is the best just to keep your job; that is what some economists are doing too. In times that are as hard as they are people don't want to rock the boat. It is easier to compromise than to get another job.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think that economists should follow the science and there beliefs that is what their job is and we rely on it however i agree that sometime in order to keep their job they have to become a partisan. It is up to the economists to decide if he can go against the scientific facts.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jessica beck forgot to put my name sorry had to re post.

    I think that economists should follow the science and there beliefs that is what their job is and we rely on it however i agree that sometime in order to keep their job they have to become a partisan. It is up to the economists to decide if he can go against the scientific facts.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Politics is about power, the ability to control the policies that influence society. The only mixture of politics and economics should be the observance of history and learning from those mistakes. Sadly we say that some of our countries political decisions are based on economics, when most of the time they seem to follow personal gain or "partisan". Some policy makers' "partisans" can be described as their moral positions. However, I believe that morality can be deceiving. For example, if we impose policies that help the poor, this is fair because the rich have many opportunities and the poor have less, evening the playing field seems to be the moral issue of equality. However the moral pursuit of equality may take from the rich. Now is that moral? I don't believe taking anything from anybody and deciding who receives it is moral. So this is where models could be used to show us the affect of our policies. These models should be proven throughout history. Our government should move away from a political system so dependent on big money, campaigning, and "Big Government", and back to policies that are modeled to influence people on the state levels, limiting partisanship to the local level. However this could be my own partisan.
    Thank you for a great blog and some great comments class.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think an economists job is really about responsibility to the facts and the truth of the matter. However, I also feel that they must also pick and choose their battles. Sometimes you have to give up your own justifications for the greater good of society and to help those that need you. Sometimes a step in the right direction is still a win even if its not everything that you stand for.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Emily Peters6/9/10 10:43 PM

    I do agree with you. Economists should never surrender their science for partisanship. Bottom line is that economists should DO their job. They should always do what they think is right and not let anyone influence their decision, especially if it is based on politics or a politician. I hate to think about people that are so influenced by others and don't do what they think is right or even what they know is right.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Nicole Rodriguez6/9/10 10:50 PM

    I feel that there is a fine line between an economist and a partisan. It's unfortunate that the two ever fall into the same category, but clearly it happens more so than not. Economists are there for the people - to let them know the truths about poiticians and the government. We need them to be honest and uphold high standards for not only themselves, but for our communities. Partisans are followers and want you to hear only their side of the story or the issue at hand. Partisans are great cheerleaders for politians and can win you over quick. The balance between the two needs to remain clear and constant. I also agree with you that they are both important aspects and should be kept in different categories.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Kersten Gonce11/1/11 5:58 PM

    I certainly agree with you. Our economists should do what they know is right way to guide their nation, because they speak for their people. Economists have a choice to stand up for what they believe is right and/or to hold their tongue and let others influence their decisions. I do also agree that the two categories are two entirely different breeds of cats, and need to remain that way, and keep their meaning pure.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lori Hodges11/1/11 11:35 PM

    I agree with your closing statement. My thought is this: Since economist spend countless hours analyzing and studying how the world operates and what makes it thrive and are often asked for recommendations on how to improve the economic outcome.. then …Why can’t politicians respect the suggestions and opinions of the economist and stop what I call “Quick Fixes”. For economist, walking the fine line between objectivity and partisanship goes with facing the trade off and realizing that there is a cost of any action. Everyone should believe in what they stand for?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Whitney Josephs12/1/11 9:23 AM

    If an economist is going to go against science then what kind of true economist are they. Their entire career is based on being a voice, a leader of sorts, and giving advice/suggestions of what would be the best outcome/solution. When things are based on principals why differ from that, it defeats the purpose. When things are so large and important, a person shouldn't be afraid to stand up for what is right or wrong. Not everyone is always going to agree with what you say, but having the science and the proof of research and studying behind you should give a person more confidence. If someone doesn't stray from the pack, especially when the 'pack' is wrong, then you wont have someone to be a leader and guide the 'pack' to better pastures.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Your personal experiences, relationships, world view and ideals will eventually surface no matter your devotion to scientific integrity. It is idealistic at best to assume that any human could deny something so core to all of us as values. The way you were raised, your mentors, the professors that influenced you, social economic background, the part of the country your from all form a basic system of values that could never be completely wiped out.

    To return to the football analogy, most of the experts these days are all former player and coach greats. While most are able to maintain a high level of impartiality, in his heart of hearts Bill Cowhar will always want the Steelers to win and thus effect the way he reports football in some situations. That is why when betting on a football game by the advise of the experts it is still a risky proposition.

    While I would agree that some things in economics are basic facts I would assume that within a panel of ten economist you might find ten varying solutions on any given complex subject. Calling someone with differing economic viewpoint (from either side) can be a tempting way to invalidate their particular stance on an issue.

    Although I do agree with your basic premiss that any economist worth his salt should maintain professional objectivity. No-one can be completely impartial in all facets of economics. Rather than relying on a Spock like discipline, experience and values are what help a great economist adjust to an ever-changing "science."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Andi Thomas19/1/11 3:28 PM

    I agree with your closing statement as well. It is difficult to find a middle position on expert and partisan. I can say that it makes me glad that I don't have to be an economist. I also feel for the Obama administration for having to toe the line on this. He has and will continue to face so much criticism on his choices regarding taxes, health care, and all other issues going on at the moment. And since every little thing affects the economy as a whole... Well, it's not an easy job.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think in general, anybody with any kind of advisor would want to know that decisions the advisor is making are in the best interest to you. With our economy the way it is at this point, it is imperative to have a "team" that is acting in your best interest. There is alot of pressure on the economic advisors of our country and I believe you have to set your personal feelings to a side and do and say what is best for the well being of our nation. It's what your paid to do.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Christa Lilley20/1/11 1:32 PM

    It is hard to not let others influence you especially in something such as politics. An economist has to choose things that he believes are right and some that are wrong to fit in with other people which they shouldn’t have to do. Things like this happen to people everyday because they are pressured into making certain decisions to fit in.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't envy economists or politicians right now - they are faced with some incredibly large problems. Economists walk a tight line, I guess, trying to not get fired and thus lose all their ability to do good, and yet stand up for what they believe.
    Principle 7 of Economics says governments can sometimes improve market outcomes. But if economists give them wrong information, their policies they enact can make things much worse. Talk about pressure!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hannah Allen20/1/11 6:00 PM

    If an economist is hired by a government agency or politician to advise a group of people or an individual on which financial/economic ventures are most smart and healthy, then that is the job they need to do. It is important in any field to know the difference between right and wrong and to not be easily swayed by others opinions or thoughts. Especially when that person is not the professional. When it comes to politics, this is something that could happen pretty easily. One must remember to do the job at hand and make good decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Kim Huffman:
    I agree that economist should not surrender their science for partisanship. I also understand that it is more easily said than done, especially for someone that is not facing that particular situation. As in most professions, there comes a time when you have to make the tough moral decision to do what is right as opposed to what is popular. When an economist becomes an adviser to a politician, they do have to become a partisan to a certain extent; however, they must also remember that their commitment to the economy and the people that it effects is far more important than the ever changing policies that are created by today's politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The problem with our country is that people do not stand up for what they really believe is the right thing. Being diplomatic, riding the fence or whatever you want to call it, only means that someone couldn't see past the dollar. I agree with you that economists should speak up if he information being passed on to the public is true or distorted.
    ---Kristy Long

    ReplyDelete
  41. Stephanie Tunches20/1/11 8:14 PM

    I definitely agree that the world has need for both experts and partisans, and it is difficult to do both simultaneously. It is in our best interest to have economists that are well knowledgeable because they need to know how exactly to guide politicians as well as anyone in a high status. Although it may not be a fun role for them, they definitely need to do what is best, whether others deem it the right choice or not.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Everanit Lopez20/1/11 9:36 PM

    Economists definitely walk a fine line between holding to their science and remaining objective. Overall, I think the economist needs to provide the most accurate information for the best interest of our country and in return this will benefit all parties involved.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Piper Wilson20/1/11 9:53 PM

    I totally agree. I don't think an economist (or anyone for that matter) should compromise representing their beliefs just to appear united with their political party or candidate. I'm sure there are times the economist will disagree on smaller issues, but I would hope the majority of their beliefs fall right in line with the political candidate. I think so much more would be solved in this world if people (especially politically speaking) would just be open and honest.

    ReplyDelete
  44. How funny... I just found my previous comment from the first time I read this in Micro Econ... and to some extent, I still agree with my sentiments from a year ago, with some additional thoughts....I do still believe that there absolute neccessities in employing expert advisors. I know that too often emotion clouds what is normally rational, educated thoughts and ideas... and I would find it hard, if I were an economic advisor, to have calculated the best laid plan, then watch my politician ignore evidence and research.... just as hard if I were a politician, who believed in policy or plans, to hear his best advisors possibly trash it..
    I think there is a definite need for factual advising, for brilliant minds to carefully calculate the best planning. However, I do believe there is also a need for passion, for believe in policy that may defy some calculation, within reason. Perhaps it doesn't appear to be the best plan, simply because it has never been tried... most research and advising is based on prior results. Just a thought.
    Missy Hardeman

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think that an economist being the expert knows what he is talking about and they should not bite their tongues when the politicians support polices that contradicts the knowledge of the economist. I think that when silencing the pie that everyone should pay their far share when it comes to taxes, the rich should not pay more and the poor should not pay less. This would help when it comes to work incentives. Feliciano Robert Garcia, not an expert.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I am ignorant when it come to politics, I don't understand it. However, reading this blog and comments I could understand the basics of it. Politicians will not hear out or accept a word of advise from the economist, due that they might think their way is the better than the economist. Even-though, an economist knows the facts. As a teenager, I didn't want to listen to what my parents had to say, I wanted to do what I thought was better for me. Now that I'm an adult, things could have gone a lot smoother have I listen to my economist.
    Cristina Torres

    ReplyDelete
  47. Linda Washington21/1/11 9:28 PM

    I agree that an economist should stay true to his beliefs and not become part of the political status quo. The invisible hand that determines the economic effects on the global market would actually be more like a manipulator and a marionette. Seemingly cause and effect moves in the market would actually be carefully orchestrated moves.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In order for this country to continue to exist i believe economists are going to have to separate themselves from politicians. Our lawmakers have become to self-serving and I believe our government representatives, for the most part are in it for the perks andnot to actually represent their constituents. I would not want to be an advisor to our current govering body in our current economic system. It would be a difficult job to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  49. It seems to me that economists are just as bias and partisans as the politicians and voters are. One can listen to any news or business show and there are two economists arguing opposite sides of an issue, whether it be healthcare reform, extending Bush's tax cuts, or stop raising the national government's debt ceiling. Why is this? Perhaps their bias was formed early on in their career on whether they are from the Friedman point of view or the Keyensian point of view. A more cynical observer might point out that an economist may argue a particular point on whether they could make a better living representing the more conservative element of the political spectrum or the more liberal element of the political spectrum

    Ken Haltom

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ron Martin7/6/11 11:33 AM

    That is a difficult line to walk, since there is not a guarantee that party policy is the best thing for the economy. Party Policy is set by moral, popular and other such factors which more often than not leave economists in a difficult position because they don't see the economy as objectively as the economists do.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Kyle Kennedy10/6/11 12:57 PM

    I agree that politicians do not need to act or teach in the same way a economist does. When this is the case, politicians can say or do things in order to just get the votes. While on the other hand, Economists values can differ but they need to make decisions that are right rather than what others expect them to.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Bamma Moore

    I think if it your job to tell the truth than that is what needs to happen, I think out economy is the way it is now because too many economist went along with the popular opinon rather than their gut feeling. It is their job, it is what they do better than anyone and the information presented should true.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Montrelle Mathews23/8/11 10:32 AM

    I have to agree that an economist must walk a fine line when getting into the politic field, in some cases though I think that hen the norm is challenged by someone saying that a specific opinion might not be the best for the total outcome I think it is posative. You can't have a good foundation on anything without science and facts that is my opinion. Maybe if we did speak out a bit more it would myabe encourge others to at least look at the issue again before making final decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I feel helpless in the fact our economy is such a mess. I don't understand why we are fighting a war in a different country that we can't afford to be involved in. When Obama took office one of the first things he did was to give away money. I got 300.00. I enjoyed it but it really did nothing for me. 300.00 isn't going to break me or make me wealthy. It bought a few groceries and paid a few bills. Take that 300 and multiply it millions. This didn't stimulate the economy but it did put the United States going the wrong direction for a recovery.This money in whole could have made a difference in our economy. I wonder who was giving out the advice that this money would stimulate and correct our economy??

    ReplyDelete
  55. Randy Novak29/8/11 9:25 AM

    I agree that an economist should state his opinion without regard to political or other type of pressure. What bothers me is the accountability factor is non-existant for their ideals. If an economist states a said plan is good, and it turns out to be bad, or vice-versa, it seems they continue forward to "analyze" the next issue. Expert opinions are just that, opinions. The country is in a difficult situation, and with all the experts out there, I'm not sure how that has happened. The reality is there are too few that disagree with their parties policy, or have their voice drowned out by the majority. And there is no way of telling which opinion is correct until the results are reviewed several months or years down the road.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Randy don't you think the accountability will come if they fail? Right now I feel like there are a lot of important jobs on the line from the mistakes the decision makers made. The economist are only suggesting to the person or persons making the final decision is the one that is going to pay the price for the decisions they make. To many mistakes and they probably won't have their jobs long either the decision maker or the economist.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Randy Novak30/8/11 10:15 AM

    Bea, I disagree with your point. A large majority of them have already failed. It is similiar to an individual who suggests you buy a stock, you buy it, and it tanks several months later. The person than comes back and says he was just "advising". I am wondering where the economists were three years ago that were saying our economy, jobs, etc. would be where they are today. Even today, it doesn't seem like anyone knows what is going to happen from week to week much less a year in the future, but there are alot of 'opinions'. This all seems to remind me of a editorial I read during the tragedy of Sept 11th. The jist of the article was aimed at the so-called future tellers, or future predictors, etc. On Sept 11th, the question was 'Were any of you working yesterday?" I'm not so sure a "professional" opinion is any different than a regular opinion when it comes to predicting what may happen.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Jack Wachsmann30/8/11 11:00 AM

    First I would just like to say how much I enjoy the comparison with the balance of betting on football and being a fan. There is nothing worse than a fan that doesn't know how to separate himself from his team, and look at the sport in a objective nature. In terms of the political adviser, its like they are riding on a high-wire, on a unicycle, in a Cirque Du Soleil show. They have so many things to consider when making their decisions. It is ironic that they have to not only consider the balance between their science and what they believe to be accurate vs. the partisanship and stance of the politician they are advising. No, that is not all. They must also weigh how valuable their job is vs. standing against the stance of the politician. This reminds me of my job. I am a server at a fine dining establishment here in Waco, and for me it is very much a balancing act at times. Before deciding to go back to school, I was a restaurant manager. I tend to see a broad spectrum of things that I think are important enough to tell the managers about. Most of the time the take offense because it is something they could have prevented or changed themselves. I often have to do the same balancing act and decide how valuable my job is vs. how important it is that I take an issue to management. Not that my job is anywhere close to the tension or responsibility of a economic political adviser. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes, advising someone on how to run the country. I really enjoyed reading this.

    Jack Wachsmann

    ReplyDelete
  59. In general my knowledge of politics is very limited but in reading this, and many more blogs to come, I am hoping to grasp a better knowledge of economics and politics. I do agree with the claim of economists staying true to their science and not surrendering to other pressures or differences in opinion. I feel that a job of an economists is difficult, and it is one that takes a very objective, non-biased point of view. As an economist I feel it is their political and public right to stay true to their science and moral beliefs to make decisions that are looking out for society, and if they surrender their beliefs to become a partisan then they are failing the American people and themselves.

    Kristen Kelly

    ReplyDelete
  60. I think using the excuse of "working from the inside out" to justify ones inability to stand up to what you know to be the truth (and can prove it!) is a cop out. Why would you have a job that would make you do that?

    Maybe I need another cup of coffee but what do you think would happen if economists actually advised on actual science rather than interpreting science to advise on what the leaders want to hear? Or better yet, have a leader that WANTS to hear what past science has proven? Whoa...what a concept! :-)

    Happy Wednesday everyone!
    Theresa

    ReplyDelete
  61. I feel that economists should stick to their guns and advise the politicians on what they believe and know what actually works. I also believe that economists should be at the forefront of the political campaigns to educate the public on how the economics system actually works. When the public hears "tax cut", they automatically think that money is being put into their pockets. I strongly believe if the economists speak out, then the public will come to understand the process and know what is actually being done and accomplished with our politicians.
    Gena Harcrow

    ReplyDelete
  62. I agree with your dislike of economists who will surrender their science for partisanship. Speaking as a scientist they should be impartial and above the partisan bickering. When their leader, whether it be President Bush, or President Obama says something that is not correct from an ecoonomic standpoint, they should not simply ignore it. Yes, they should try and change the system from within, but not at the expense of appearing to put politics above science. A good example from a conservative administration is mentioned above with regards to Mankiw and President Bush, and, a good example from a more progressive administration would be when President Obama a couple of years ago said that he questioned whether NAFTA was good for America. Free trade is good as we learned in that it opens up the market to more demand and can increase production. In that situation the President, from an economic standpoint was incorrect and his economic advisors should speak up and say so.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Kevin Rhodes31/8/11 6:03 PM

    At some point in your life everyone has to become Partisan and go with the majority on issues. It's hard to believe that if you are an expert in any field that you need to bite your tongue in situations so not to offend or cast doubt on your superiors. As when Mankiw supported the tax cuts that he didn't believe in he kept himself in a position to still be influential. When it comes to the association between my boss and I, i'm the expert but not a week goes by that i have to partisan when it comes to a task he gives me.

    Kevin Rhodes

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ester Anderson said...
    I also agree .Mankiw is what the books calls a rational person.(rational people)He did what he had to by keeping his mouth closed in order to make a change.I am partial to this because I agree that the econimist should stand up and stick by what they represent however If Mankiiw did he probally would have been fired then how could he help to accomplish anything.However on the other hand I think he handled the fall out very well with his words.I am not very aware of many of the things going on in the government but I hope to become more knowledgable in the future as a result of this class.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I am not very well informed about economics or politics, but this is my understanding of this post. In some point in everyone's career, you are required to be a partisan. Its like an unwritten rule when you work for someone - you are required to agree with them, whether you know more about a given topic or not. Yes, the world would probably be a better place if this were not true, and if we we really heard the truyh to all economic and political problems and policies and not the interpretation that best benefitted a specific political candidate, but that just isn't the case with our political system.

    ReplyDelete
  66. laura Ledford1/9/11 8:59 PM

    I bekieve that economist should do what is right no matter what but it doesnt always work out that. I agree Nicole you are required to agree with your employees no matter wrong or right.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Chris Simmons14/9/11 11:51 PM

    I believe rather you are an economist or a politician, you each have your own job. If one opinion could generate the perfect solution then we wouldn't have both economists and politicians. With that being said, an economist could scientifically create and voice a great suggestion, however, the politician may not see eye to eye to the full length. This is a vulnerable time that may create a trade off. This is also where we as the helpless have to hope and believe all motives are individual and pure.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Jonathan DeBough26/1/12 10:54 AM

    I think the world could do without partisan economists. The study of economics is research needed to be done by an expert. I believe economists working in political role should receive tenured within their job because their research and opinion can help shape future policy. The situation is similar to that of researchers/professors at universities. They receive tenure so that they can do research that contradicts others. Tenure allows the researcher to become an expert instead of an partisan.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Economists, like any other person, do what they have to do in order to survive in the world. Whether they are lying or not, if the don’t meet the criteria their authorities have set for them, they will get fired. Tweaking the truth a bit is a inevitable because of the profession they have chosen for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I believe that an economist has a moral obligation to uphold. If he has clients that ask him his or her opinions, then he should state the facts as they are. He shouldn't say what they would like to hear simply to maintain his job or to become good in their eyes. Looking from an economist's perspective then yes, he does need to maintain his job so he can have a solid income for him and his family; however, he has a moral obligation to maintain as well. Therefore, I agree that becoming an economist means more than studying factual data, it means that one must stand up for what is right and oppose what is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know that much about politics or how economists work. I'm not sure if I really want to. In the article, however, I think if you believe in something you should stand behind it and not let anything persuade you otherwise. Both politicians and economists hide the real truth from the public and only say what the public wants to hear. I do believe our economy has been in a crisis, that really isn't a secret, however, I don't think the whole truth is being said. I do think everyone at some point in their life has done something that they don't necessarily believe in or agree with in order to keep someone else at ease with their decision.

      Delete
  71. Amber Frenzel26/1/12 5:38 PM

    I definitely agree that economists should stick to their own beliefs and science when making decisions. I think that any economist who is "between a rock and a hard place"- between his or her own beliefs and those of who he or she is expected to support is in a very difficult situation. I think that the possible outcomes need to be scrutinized greatly to find what needs to be done, but that, barring some horrible catastrophe, economists need to remain as impartial as possible and employ their own beliefs. I also think that decisions should not be made solely on what will keep X, Y, and Z happy with ___.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I think economist or not everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you are an expert on the matter than your political or personal views should not change a professional opinion, nor shouls it discredit you if your line of work is for the United States government.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I don't believe that everyone has the ability to do what economist do. It is very hard to base our decisions strictly on the evidence presented and leave our personal opinions and beliefs behind. I do belief that people still try to persuade economists to their viewpoint when it serves their particular interest. To what extent economists truly stick to the facts without letting their personal feelings affect the outcome is still undetermined in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Kati Higginbotham26/1/12 9:19 PM

    This is my first time learning much of anything about economics. I do think that one should stand up for what they believe in and not let something or someone else effect their personal opinion. However with that being said, being a politician or an economist can have huge effect on others. Therefore things may be said a certain way, or not said at all, in order to protect or mislead. We may not understand all of the reasons behind this. But that is just the way our government is.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Bryan Long26/1/12 9:59 PM

    I've never viewed economics as a science. I always kind of viewed it as an extension of government. If it really is a science then I think that it is good for economists to act as experts, not partisans, but if they are an extension of the government then they need to act as partisans.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Melissa Oliver26/1/12 10:15 PM

    Economist I believe is like like any other profession. They go through the education and experience just like teachers and doctors to become professionals. The true profession type will not bow down to others opinion and sway facts they stand up for what they were taught. A teacher teaches, A doctor heals, and a economist knows money. Economist has a duty to protect the economy as a doctor ,nurse to protect their patients.
    Melissa Oliver

    ReplyDelete
  77. I love your post! I also think that our economist should speak out to help with our financial situation. In reality isn’t that what they are here for? They should not change their beliefs because they are concerned about their jobs, stick to what they believe in!

    ReplyDelete
  78. krystal reyes29/1/12 10:21 PM

    what I agree with is having the right person or group that will take this country to the new evolution. someone who knows how to look at todays society, with a moral outlook on a way we can progress as country. who's willing to help this economy shape up healthcare systems, and financial crisis.so that it will cost little to no money from the patient. If canada can do it why cant we. if we are so broke. why do broadcast all these tv shows that give away hundreds of thousands of dollars. our governments is not broke, and the economists are not stupid.FACTS is are all we have to rely on.

    ReplyDelete
  79. It would ideal if everyone could say exactly what they wanted to. However, as the textbook stated presidential economists give the president their recommendation but theirs is just one piece of the puzzle and the president must weigh at the factors before making a decision. If the president didn't he might be committing policial suicide.

    ReplyDelete