lay people v economists on state of economy

[butters]

when it comes to the state of the economy and how well any particular administration is doing, polls reflect how lay people tend to make their judgements based on inflation-figures and not a whole lot else.

when they hear consistent messaging aimed at pushing the rise in inflation with no equivalent media exposure of balancing facts about an economy's real health, people tend to buy into the negative views. Economists, however, see things pretty differently.

"As an economist, without any political axe to grind, I would say that the Congress and former President [Donald] Trump and President Biden have done a lot to alleviate the pain of the recession for ordinary families," he said. "I would say the United States has actually done better than most of the industrialized world."

To back this claim, Burtless pointed to the rapid recovery from the recession seen during the early days of the pandemic, the continued healthy performance of the stock market, the fact that average household spending has remained stable, and that the economy grew in 2021 despite the ongoing concerns of the pandemic.

"I'm more surprised at how good things have turned out to be from an economic standpoint," Burtless said. Burtless is not alone in this rosy assessment.

Karl W. Smith, former vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation and assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina, penned an article in Bloomberg that stated "the president deserves some credit for avoiding the policy mistakes of [2009]." Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote in The New York Times that "this is actually a very good economy, albeit with some problems. Don't let the doomsayers tell you otherwise." And Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told CNN in May that "the economy is booming. It's busting out all over."

Why then do most Americans feel that the president is failing on the economy? Burtless said it comes down to a cultural hatred of inflation and the fact that political opponents are effectively tapping into this hatred to undermine Biden's performance.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...sts-praising-his-job/ar-AASxQc3?ocid=msedgntp

 

[The_Trouvere]

In my humble opinion most whites will give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt on the economy because they do not trust the Democrats on racial issues. Because it has become dangerous to criticize blacks, whites who dislike blacks will find other excuses to criticize the Democrats.

 

[LittleDixie]

The study of economics is the study of an insanely complex network of competing interests, supply chains and personal choices. It is the study of banks, value, money, people and incentives. It is not like a simple math equation, and the assessments of economists are vulnerable to being wrong (sometimes embarrassingly so).

Take the Yale economist Irving Fisher. He has the distinction of being recorded as saying "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau" in the New York Times on September 3, 1929. He was an economist, and he saw nothing but blue skies and smooth sailing ahead for the US economy.

On October 24 (Black Thursday), the stock market lost 11 percent of it's value.

On October 28 (Black Monday), the stock market lost 13 more percent.

On October 29 (Black Tuesday), it lost 12 more percent.

Economists can be wrong, and we should not treat their predictions as fact - only as predictions.

 

[LupusDei]

The study of economics is the study of an insanely complex

You are confusing analysis with forecast.

True, you can't expect economic forecasts to be much better than those of weather (and we all know meteorologists are extremely proud -- and deserving to be -- when they get things mostly right as much as whooping 40% of time), if not for other reasons than actual dependence, but even there you can make some rather safe claims about spread of possible futures.

The macro stuff in economics aren't that esoteric at all, but even to say how it is today isn't as easy as looking out the window. Mostly, because individual experience may incidentally sharply differ from the macroeconomics (with isn't even meant to describe that individual experience anyway), and data collection and analysis take time. So, we only can discuss what it maybe was the quarter before last, and the current in economics is actually already a prognosis extrapolated from yesterday's news, almost guaranteed to be at least somewhat wrong.

Yet, everyone wants to know should they pack their damn umbrella going to beach tomorrow.

 

[WillJ8787]

when it comes to the state of the economy and how well any particular administration is doing, polls reflect how lay people tend to make their judgements based on inflation-figures and not a whole lot else.

when they hear consistent messaging aimed at pushing the rise in inflation with no equivalent media exposure of balancing facts about an economy's real health, people tend to buy into the negative views. Economists, however, see things pretty differently.https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...sts-praising-his-job/ar-AASxQc3?ocid=msedgntp

I actually agree that 45 could have done a lot worse with economic measures than he did and 46 is working on the same kind of approach and it's still to early to judge 46's success or failure.

Politicization of economics is nothing new and is why I encourage lay folks to actually dive in deeper to it and study it. Plenty of ways exist to do this: read books, take a back to school night class or a community class, etc.

The USA is amazingly resilient and also one of the strongest countries economically and that is still true. We are a great country to live in among many other great countries.

 

[LittleDixie]

You are confusing analysis with forecast.

Point taken.

It sounds like we agree on the points I was hoping to get across, but you make a good point.

 

[pecksniff]

Economists can be wrong, and we should not treat their predictions as fact - only as predictions.

Economics, like other sciences, is always advancing. Science was wrong before is never good ground for skepticism.

 

[LittleDixie]

Economics, like other sciences, is always advancing. Science was wrong before is never good ground for skepticism.

Actually, a part of science is re-testing old results and challenging old assumptions.

We would not have Relativity if Newtonian physics was the end of the discussion.

If your idea can't stand up to criticism or challenge, then your idea is shit.

 

[butters]

A general consensus spread across differing (& honest adherents to) schools of economic thought as to the state of a certain economy at any given time, is a more reliable indicator than any individual's proposals.

 

[LittleDixie]

A general consensus spread across differing (& honest adherents to) schools of economic thought as to the state of a certain economy at any given time, is a more reliable indicator than any individual's proposals.

Citation needed.

 

[butters]

Actually, a part of science is re-testing old results and challenging old assumptions.

We would not have Relativity if Newtonian physics was the end of the discussion.

If your idea can't stand up to criticism or challenge, then your idea is shit.

and would you also challenge the OP's concept, that economists tend to have a better understanding and grasp of an economy's 'health' than the lay person who hasn't had the same exposure to information and education in the study of this?

 

[pecksniff]

Actually, a part of science is re-testing old results and challenging old assumptions.

We would not have Relativity if Newtonian physics was the end of the discussion.

If your idea can't stand up to criticism or challenge, then your idea is shit.

And economists know that and, like other scientists, are always open to revising their theories in light of new data.

Well, except for the Austrian school.

 

[LittleDixie]

and would you also challenge the OP's concept, that economists tend to have a better understanding and grasp of an economy's 'health' than the lay person who hasn't had the same exposure to information and education in the study of this?

My point was just that we need to keep in mind that economists can be very very wrong.

But, as was pointed out to me, this guy wasn't really making a prediction so much as they were making an assessment.

I still think it is important to take the word of economists with a grain of salt. That was really my point.

 

[butters]

My point was just that we need to keep in mind that economists can be very very wrong.

But, as was pointed out to me, this guy wasn't really making a prediction so much as they were making an assessment.

I still think it is important to take the word of economists with a grain of salt. That was really my point.

your point–couched as it was–was intended to attempt to imply that the lay person was just as likely to be right about the economy as someone who has been highly educated in it.

quoting the erroneous judgements of one economist has zero to do with the judgements you can find (if you ever really wanted to) of countless others. it's a spurious argument and a typical trumplican stance... to attempt to muddy the waters rather than address the original point with any intellectual integrity.

the war on education is being fought daily

 

[pecksniff]

your point–couched as it was–was intended to attempt to imply that the lay person was just as likely to be right about the economy as someone who has been highly educated in it.

quoting the erroneous judgements of one economist has zero to do with the judgements you can find (if you ever really wanted to) of countless others. it's a spurious argument and a typical trumplican stance... to attempt to muddy the waters rather than address the original point with any intellectual integrity.

the war on education is being fought daily

There does seem to be general tendency in the populist right to reject real expertise of any kind requiring higher education as "elitist."

 

[brw02]

My point was just that we need to keep in mind that economists can be very very wrong.

But, as was pointed out to me, this guy wasn't really making a prediction so much as they were making an assessment.

I still think it is important to take the word of economists with a grain of salt. That was really my point.

Economists can be wrong; it would not be the first time. Arthur Laffer would be a classic example. The Laffer Curve indicated that tax cuts would produce so much revenue that the deficit would shrink. Illogical as that may be, it has governed American tax policies for 40 years. It was the centerpiece of Ronald Reagan's economic policies. But Laffer was an outlier and other economists wrote him off as a buffoon. As they predicted the results have been greater deficits and wealth disparities. You should be skeptical but the majority of economists can make more informed predictions than I can.

 

[butters]

There does seem to be general tendency in the populist right to reject real expertise of any kind requiring higher education as "elitist."

yeah... 'jo bob knows as much as his doctor if not more!'

'science? who needs "science", I have God on my side'

'how do we really know the holocaust happened when some really good people say it didn't?'

'teacher's should stick to teaching what parents think they should teach! fuck higher ejja-kay-shun!'

 

[butters]

how long before some dimwit comes in to gleefully point out spelling errors i made using a hypothetical education-denier's voice/spelling level?

 

[LittleDixie]

your point–couched as it was–was intended to attempt to imply that the lay person was just as likely to be right about the economy as someone who has been highly educated in it.

No. I was trying to imply that economists can and have been wrong, and just because an economist predicts something does not mean that it is fact. I pointed out one classic example of a Yale economist who thought everything was great just before the stock market crash.

Weathermen are often wrong as well. The nature of both the economist and the weatherman is that both are dealing with complex systems that can defy prediction.