8 Comments

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

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

I would hope that economics courses propagandize the good in Markets. Some voice needs to combat the persistent focus on market failures among politicians, mainstream media, entertainment media and non-science courses in schools and universities. In May 2006, Clive Crook wrote in The Atlantic,

"Capitalism is not much loved, even in the parts of the world it has served best. If only one country were to dote on free enterprise, America surely ought to be it. ... But no. American enterprise has its spokesmen, brasher than most, just as it has its critics, as fierce as any. In the main, however, when intelligent Americans with no axes to grind contemplate the market economy, they are neither angry nor adoring, just wary and distrustful. It was ever thus.

Seen a movie lately? Watched television or read a newspaper? The culture that speaks to Americans, and hence to the Western world, radiates suspicion of free enterprise—cordial and restrained, as a rule, but dubious nonetheless. ....

As viewed from Hollywood, workers are usually downtrodden, bosses are usually grasping, consumers are usually gulled, and shadowy global finance is always calling the geopolitical shots. We manage to prosper, most of us, but this system of ours is not very noble.

....

How about a movie in which a firm prospers under threat of competition by selling things that people want at an affordable price, paying its workers the market wage, and breaking no laws, thereby advancing the common good? Well, you see the problem"

So, have at it economists of the world, preach and, as Al Gore says, fudge the facts because the cause is urgent.

Expand full comment

Second, there are a bunch of people out there with a personality type such that they love to think of themselves are bold iconoclasts who courageously buck the conventional wisdom that the establishment had tried to cram down their throats. When such people stumble across an instance where what they had been taught is not quite right, they will congratulate themselves that they have made a big transgressive discovery that those ivory tower eggheads have got it all wrong

Now I see why anti-drug advertisements that overstate the risks of drugs are less effective than more honest ones. I'm sure there are many similar examples.

Expand full comment

Certainly it is better if one wants to succeed in communicating. It is well known that if you are an economist and you want to be on TV a lot, you are more likely to get there and stay there if you hand out simplistic pap as "the definite answer to inflation!" or whatever. "I have the answer and here it is, no caveats!" Of course some of these shows like duelling economists, so A says "Oil companies are gouging us!" and B says "Let the free market in oil work!" But in either case, you do not get on unless you have a definite and unnuanced argument.

Given the level of public information and all that, maybe we can do no better, but I for one continue to idealistically hope that we could do better and get at least somewhat closer to the truth, rather than that indelible entity of "truthiness."

Expand full comment

Although it is inevitable that most education should rely on accepting authority as a basis for arguments, the sort of simplification argued for here would not only reinforce but mask that what is being taught is an interpretation. Would Caplan argue in favor of those who in the past taught Keynesian economics as fundamentally true with only the details up for debate?

Expand full comment

I think Caplan's proposal relies too much on memorization. What good is it for people to be pounded over the head with "markets... good..." if they're not taught to think through the caveats?

Teach people to enjoy thinking about complex problems and they'll come to rational conclusions about markets. if people find no utility in thinking and coming to rational conclusions, it doesn't matter how much economics teachers simplify it for them.

Expand full comment

But would it be an improvement if everyone who took an introductory economics course just learned that markets are great?

Having taken an introductory economics course, I can't see how this differs from current practice.

Expand full comment