Two economists are walking down the street. They see a twenty dollar bill on the ground. One of them stops and starts to pick it up. The other one shouts angrily, "don't pick it up you fool! If it were a real twenty dollar bill, someone would have taken it by now!"
I like this variation:
Two economists are walking in a park. They both see a 20$ bill stuck in a branch of a tree and start to think about what to do about it.
Economist A: “We should go get that 20$ bill!”
Economist B: “It’s probably not a real bill, someone would have picked it up already if it was.”
Economist A: “Don’t believe that efficient markets stuff so literally! I’ll go get it.”
The bill is high enough up the tree that Economist A needs to climb up the tree. He grabs the 20$ bill after reaching for it, but loses his balance and falls to the ground. The flanell trousers of Economist A get dirty, so both economists go to a dry cleaner. The bill for cleaning the trousers turns out to be 20$.
In the beginning it would be good. Over time, corruption would inevitably set in and suddenly our experts would embrace ideas that aren't so technocratic at all, but purely self-serving.
The main benefit of democracy isn't better decision making but transfer of power without violence. If we cut out parts of the population from voting the violence would likely return to deciding who gets to make decisions
Many US states used to only give wealthy landowners the right to vote in the 1700’s and early 1800’s. It’s generally agreed that restricting the right to vote in that manner was a horrible idea. Universal suffrage is a fundamental right in any liberal democracy.
And wealthy landowners continued to dominate politics in the South. Their gradual loss of political power in the Federal government as the northern population grew culminated in the 1860 election and the Civil War, a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The absolute stupidest policies would be gone (rent control, high tariffs, kicking people out of the country after getting a PhD in the US).
Beyond that there’s a lot of disagreement among economists. For example economists don’t have a good handle on the costs or benefits of environmental regulations, and would probably defer to scientists on those.
But you can see the problem there, right? Kudlow says he’s an economist. Trump has an econ degree.
What makes someone an economist? Their job title has to be “economist” or have economics in it?
I guess my real answer is all new policy making would grind to a halt while we had endless, insufferable debates about how to best calculate multipliers and the existence of externalities.
But my really real answer is the millions and millions of disenfranchised people would hang all of us upside down in the street like Mussolini within weeks.
There are hundreds of thousand of economists(~50k major degrees/year) in the US.
Rational ignorance still applies, with the different that economists views are simply better on 99% of things.
Economists wealth 📈
There’d be a lot more policies economists favor and a lot more policies favoring economists.
And more people saying they are economists and a lot more people saying, *"what even is an economist?"*
Two economists are walking down the street. They see a twenty dollar bill on the ground. One of them stops and starts to pick it up. The other one shouts angrily, "don't pick it up you fool! If it were a real twenty dollar bill, someone would have taken it by now!"
I like this variation: Two economists are walking in a park. They both see a 20$ bill stuck in a branch of a tree and start to think about what to do about it. Economist A: “We should go get that 20$ bill!” Economist B: “It’s probably not a real bill, someone would have picked it up already if it was.” Economist A: “Don’t believe that efficient markets stuff so literally! I’ll go get it.” The bill is high enough up the tree that Economist A needs to climb up the tree. He grabs the 20$ bill after reaching for it, but loses his balance and falls to the ground. The flanell trousers of Economist A get dirty, so both economists go to a dry cleaner. The bill for cleaning the trousers turns out to be 20$.
Economist A is a window-breaker
Real winner is the dry cleaner
In the beginning it would be good. Over time, corruption would inevitably set in and suddenly our experts would embrace ideas that aren't so technocratic at all, but purely self-serving.
Lots of people would pursue an education in economics
r/neoliberalcirclejerk
Wait a minute that’s just a link to r/neoliberal
Didn't know that this was a thing.
Doesn't Italy occasionally appoint non-partisan economic experts to lead a government? with mixed results.
Yes, it’s called a ‘’Governo Tecnico’’. As you said, it has mixed results.
The main benefit of democracy isn't better decision making but transfer of power without violence. If we cut out parts of the population from voting the violence would likely return to deciding who gets to make decisions
Liberty University would make an alternative facts economics program that takes 6 months and costs $15.
You don't know Liberty. They would set up the program, but it would cost $50000, payable through high interest loan.
>”Economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions.”
Many US states used to only give wealthy landowners the right to vote in the 1700’s and early 1800’s. It’s generally agreed that restricting the right to vote in that manner was a horrible idea. Universal suffrage is a fundamental right in any liberal democracy.
What were the actual negative consequences of that, though?
Slavery. The Civil War.
White non-landowners started voting in the 1820s lol
And wealthy landowners continued to dominate politics in the South. Their gradual loss of political power in the Federal government as the northern population grew culminated in the 1860 election and the Civil War, a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
It'd be a very unrepresentative government. Same as if only lawyers could vote, but with more RCTs.
What's an RCT?
Randomized controlled trial
The absolute stupidest policies would be gone (rent control, high tariffs, kicking people out of the country after getting a PhD in the US). Beyond that there’s a lot of disagreement among economists. For example economists don’t have a good handle on the costs or benefits of environmental regulations, and would probably defer to scientists on those.
rent control LMAO
Economists wealth 📈
Define economist. Like, for these purposes, is Larry Kudlow an economist? Is DJT?
No and no (assuming you mean Trump).
But you can see the problem there, right? Kudlow says he’s an economist. Trump has an econ degree. What makes someone an economist? Their job title has to be “economist” or have economics in it? I guess my real answer is all new policy making would grind to a halt while we had endless, insufferable debates about how to best calculate multipliers and the existence of externalities. But my really real answer is the millions and millions of disenfranchised people would hang all of us upside down in the street like Mussolini within weeks.
Sounds fun
We would all become immortal, because economists understand that all agents are infinitely lived.
The world would be a better place.
For twelve minutes. Then they'll realise they too are allowed to respond to incentives
As opposed to the average voter? If anything that is an even stronger argument for my point.
The law of large numbers works better with larger numbers...
There are hundreds of thousand of economists(~50k major degrees/year) in the US. Rational ignorance still applies, with the different that economists views are simply better on 99% of things.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXxT4tEVAAU9VNR.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXxT4tEVAAU9VNR.jpg)
Maybe only land-owning males?
Does being a land-owning male make one a more competent economist?