Economics and Economies

[Sean Renaud]

By Paul Krugman

In making these assertions, I’m not engaged in casual speculation — I’m drawing on a large body of political science research, mainly focused on presidential contests in the United States but clearly applicable elsewhere. This research debunks almost all the horse-race narratives beloved by political pundits — never mind who wins the news cycle, or who appeals to the supposed concerns of independent voters. What mainly matters is income growth immediately before the election. And I mean immediately: We’re talking about something less than a year, maybe less than half a year.

This is, if you think about it, a distressing result, because it says that there is little or no political reward for good policy. A nation’s leaders may do an excellent job of economic stewardship for four or five years yet get booted out because of weakness in the last two quarters before the election. In fact, the evidence suggests that the politically smart thing might well be to impose a pointless depression on your country for much of your time in office, solely to leave room for a roaring recovery just before voters go to the polls.

I think at least in the states he's underestimating the throw the bums out vibe but still.

 

[patient1]

By Paul Krugman



I think at least in the states he's underestimating the throw the bums out vibe but still.

"Tip" O'Neill was famous for saying that all politics is local.

I always thought differently. There are only 2 issues in national elections- Peace and Prosperity. ( yeah, there are various single issue voters, but pleasing them will split hairs in terms of net votes because you will alienate others).

This fits my narrative.

 

[policywank]

By Paul Krugman



I think at least in the states he's underestimating the throw the bums out vibe but still.

Throw the bums out is a visceral response that is usually derived from the experience of the very recent past. In that sense he is concurring with that throw the bums out mentality and its corollary "keep the guy I like right now". The incremental point being made is that your personal pocketbook is a much more powerful persuader than complex intellectual arguments.

Scientists have always looked down their nose at economics but it is in many ways more complex than the traditional sciences. Think about any chemical reaction - if you replicate the same chemicals and circumstances from your last experiment you will get the same result. Not so with economics. The mere knowledge of the results of the last experiment alter the current one.

The confusion is perfect fodder for a politician. Make up any bullshit story (because you can't be empirically proven right or wrong) and make them feel a little richer just long enough to get the vote. 99% won't notice that you are using their own money to make them feel richer.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Economics:

The nice thing about Mathematics and other Hard Sciences is that there is no question that 2 + 2 = 4.

The complicated thing about Sociology and other Social Sciences is that there's room for interpretation and debate.note Are '2' and '2' satisfactory evaluations based upon sound criteria? Is there a margin for error? Are '+' and '=' the correct operations to be accounting for? Is the product of the process, 4, the problem or the solution? Are we even asking the right question in the first place (or is someone out to prove something)? And, why ask at all when the answer is so obvious? This could be an indication that someone else should be chosen to ask the questions in future - they're wasting our time - though then again, this happened back in '07 and no-one batted an eyelid. We should really look into that.

The horrifying thing about Economics is that both of these are true.

This violent collision leaves a few absolutes to take refuge behind, and a wide open mine field for catastrophic assumptions and mistakes, and prime Flame Bait. There are a fair number of widely divergent economic schools of thought, each with a reasonable claim to accuracy, and each which believes the others to fail economics forever. The major difference between this schools is in what they decide to grossly oversimplify in their bid to understand something. This is probably one of the reasons Thomas Carlyle called economics "the dismal science". (And few agree on that term... Economists will claim their science isn't dismal, and many other fields will claim it's not a science. The dance goes on.) note Actually the reason why Carlyle called the economics "the dismal science" was because John Stuart Mill and his fellow economists supported the equality between all men and the abolishment of the slavery, and Carlyle was afraid that the economics would cause the decadence of the society.