In the last few months I’ve participated in two
debates with economists and have been dressed down by one of the rock stars in
the academy. While I know many cordial economists
I have met far too many that lack basic civility and tact. Perhaps they respond to incentives that favor
aggressiveness over compromise and rich financial sponsorship over unbiased
search for the truth.
While
I am painting with a broad brush I see far too many economists with the
following characteristics:
1) They
receive ample financial sponsorship that supports results-driven research and
advocacy.
2) They
may not disclose their sponsorship. If
they do, they still will insist that outcomes supportive of their sponsor are
incidental.
3) They
make up their own rules. As a lawyer I
have to work within case precedent and the rule of law. Economists can create rules that become
legitimate by use and the aforementioned financial sponsorship, e.g., the
Efficient Components Pricing Rule.
4) They
place a premium of aggressiveness and snarkiness.
5) They
personalize and attack when the merits do not favor their position. In one debate an economist did not address
the merits of my arguments, but instead emphasized that “Professor Frieden and
his ilk” are bad for America, etc.
6) They
revile laws that don’t make economic sense, but freely engage in the practice
of law without a license.
7) They
are better at math than most people and consider this as confirmation of their
superior intelligence.
8) They
consider themselves the smartest people in the room and let you know it.
9) They
often create papers that recite the obvious, or advocate something counter-intuitive
that they can "prove" with math; and
10) They
have freedom to assume anything to provide any solution. How does an economist get out of a hole? He or she assumes a ladder.