Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

Stuart Armstrong said "[economists'] commitment to markets is pragmatic, not ideological."

I don't think this is true for Bryan Caplan; its certainly not true for me.

For me the argument for markets stems from my ideological commitment to individual liberty. Markets (broadly understood as any free exchange between individuals) are the best way to organize to a free society.

I also disagree that markets are tools. In fact I think the "markets are tools" idea leads to a great deal of dissatisfaction with markets. A tool is something that is used to achieve a purpose. So for example someone wants to own a house, but for some reason they are unable to buy one that is suitable, the "markets are tools" idea would lead them to think that as the tool has failed to help them get what they want, it must be broken - ie there must be a market failure.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

I would hope that economics courses propagandize the good in Markets.

Harping on the good of markets sounds like a very bad idea. The public and journalists don't need to look far to find examples of market failure; if fed a diet of "markets are divine" from economists, then their rational conclusion will be that economists are wrong (I had that same problem myself, before finding papers by Rob Stavins that clarified the uses and limits of markets, and thus made me realise that markets were sensible tools, not ideological positions. I haven't looked back since).

But since we have to have the caveats, let's keep them simple. The message that economists should proclaim at every opportunity is:1) Markets are a source of great prosperity, and are the best choice in the majority of cases.2) Market failures do exist, but it is rare to find one where the cure is better than the disease.3) If we do find such a failure, economists will not object to the cure; our commitment to markets is pragmatic, not ideological.

as Al Gore says, fudge the facts because the cause is urgent.And what happens when a journalist or a fellow economist reveals that the facts are indeed fudged? It'll be suicidal to do so for something about which most of the public are already "wary and distrustful".

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts