You suggest “proper communication,” but I think you mean “persuasive communication.” The problem is that it is very difficult to convince someone of a fact when his pocketbook depends on denying it.
First, increasing production (GDP) should not be the end of the story. Most workers want to know how to earn more money. National Income distributions should be equally if not more important. Finally, the number of adults not counted in the civilian workforce is huge. Unemployment rates I think are misleading. Last, the Great Depression of 1929 -1942 is an excellent study guide for macro and micro economics.
This is a result of Attribution Bias, which Thaler should know. It's a type of Cognitive Bias where you accept your own shortcomings but lay the blame for outcomes on others. We teach people about personal accountability but rarely are able to recognize our own internal motivations that impact our perspective.
Two questions 1) what actual interview did some of you watch because this is a great conversation between the two of them and 2) WTAF are some of you commenting on?
Broadly that’s a bit of the point I was making with the article. There were significant criticisms directed towards several of Stewart’s points. I think the main unfair criticism from Stewart of Thaler and economists came at the end, in the podcast debrief. Thaler’s work on renaming some of the ACA health policies was criticized as meaningless when there are larger problems in the healthcare system. The criticism is unfair because it’s not Thaler who ultimately decides what gets passed (it’s politicians/voters). At the same time, all he was trying was to improve the system within the constraints the politicians set.
In a way it contrasts with Stewart’s other point in the interview, which was ‘carbon taxes will never pass’ and thus Thaler (and economists) was wrong to suggest them. It felt like with these two examples Stewart wanted it both ways - talk about what policies can pass (not carbon taxes) and hypothetical policies that politically will not pass currently (a new healthcare reform), which put Thaler always on the defensive when discussing topic (i.e From Thaler’s perspective, it’s unclear if Stewart wanted to talk hypothetical best policies, abstracting away from politics, or did he want to talk about what can we do within current political constraints?).
Overall, however, the amount of criticism delivered to Stewart was way too much given the level of discussion they were having.
I think people need to be careful with how they listen/hear Stewart. The guy isn’t a dope and he is also a humorist/satirist and entertainer. He often asks questions (or make comments) in a way that is deliberately done for the purposes of the other person to respond with education information. In a way, tosses out a common trope as a set-up for the guest to address. He can also say things that are left of field but is typically pretty good at taking push back and corrections. Just good to remember the lane he plays in - for a living.
Here I was thinking that economists were just another little sect in the knowledge class not much different to lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors or clerics. You know, people with status and access to power they'll almost anything to protect. Were it different, the economy would benefit workers not owners, the law would serve justice not property, medicine would make everyone well not enrich a few, and religion would bring solace to all not pomp and privilege for the chosen. And so on
Contrast Effect - You are making decisions based on a prejudice towards an undefined and overly broad class. It's a cognitive bias not that far removed from Confirmation bias. Possibly seek out differing perspectives and data before you draw a conclusion.
(Being overly critical of others is also a bias. Amusingly I'm a Behavioral Economist so I study how people's decisions are influenced by their bias/experience.)
Onya Lary, I'm sure you make a huge difference to people's lives what with your Behavioural Economist's (very important to capitalise that title) confidence and insight. Thanks for stopping by.
I feel like I had been living under a rock. I totally missed this Jon Stewart fight with economists. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
You suggest “proper communication,” but I think you mean “persuasive communication.” The problem is that it is very difficult to convince someone of a fact when his pocketbook depends on denying it.
First, increasing production (GDP) should not be the end of the story. Most workers want to know how to earn more money. National Income distributions should be equally if not more important. Finally, the number of adults not counted in the civilian workforce is huge. Unemployment rates I think are misleading. Last, the Great Depression of 1929 -1942 is an excellent study guide for macro and micro economics.
This is a result of Attribution Bias, which Thaler should know. It's a type of Cognitive Bias where you accept your own shortcomings but lay the blame for outcomes on others. We teach people about personal accountability but rarely are able to recognize our own internal motivations that impact our perspective.
Interesting. Thank you. I did not realise myself the true role of an economist.
Two questions 1) what actual interview did some of you watch because this is a great conversation between the two of them and 2) WTAF are some of you commenting on?
Broadly that’s a bit of the point I was making with the article. There were significant criticisms directed towards several of Stewart’s points. I think the main unfair criticism from Stewart of Thaler and economists came at the end, in the podcast debrief. Thaler’s work on renaming some of the ACA health policies was criticized as meaningless when there are larger problems in the healthcare system. The criticism is unfair because it’s not Thaler who ultimately decides what gets passed (it’s politicians/voters). At the same time, all he was trying was to improve the system within the constraints the politicians set.
In a way it contrasts with Stewart’s other point in the interview, which was ‘carbon taxes will never pass’ and thus Thaler (and economists) was wrong to suggest them. It felt like with these two examples Stewart wanted it both ways - talk about what policies can pass (not carbon taxes) and hypothetical policies that politically will not pass currently (a new healthcare reform), which put Thaler always on the defensive when discussing topic (i.e From Thaler’s perspective, it’s unclear if Stewart wanted to talk hypothetical best policies, abstracting away from politics, or did he want to talk about what can we do within current political constraints?).
Overall, however, the amount of criticism delivered to Stewart was way too much given the level of discussion they were having.
I think people need to be careful with how they listen/hear Stewart. The guy isn’t a dope and he is also a humorist/satirist and entertainer. He often asks questions (or make comments) in a way that is deliberately done for the purposes of the other person to respond with education information. In a way, tosses out a common trope as a set-up for the guest to address. He can also say things that are left of field but is typically pretty good at taking push back and corrections. Just good to remember the lane he plays in - for a living.
While I am just an interested amateur, I realise that economics is important, but so is its history. https://open.substack.com/pub/johnlaurie1/p/approaching-pitchfork-time?r=18y4cr&utm_medium=ios
Here I was thinking that economists were just another little sect in the knowledge class not much different to lawyers, accountants, engineers, doctors or clerics. You know, people with status and access to power they'll almost anything to protect. Were it different, the economy would benefit workers not owners, the law would serve justice not property, medicine would make everyone well not enrich a few, and religion would bring solace to all not pomp and privilege for the chosen. And so on
Contrast Effect - You are making decisions based on a prejudice towards an undefined and overly broad class. It's a cognitive bias not that far removed from Confirmation bias. Possibly seek out differing perspectives and data before you draw a conclusion.
(Being overly critical of others is also a bias. Amusingly I'm a Behavioral Economist so I study how people's decisions are influenced by their bias/experience.)
Onya Lary, I'm sure you make a huge difference to people's lives what with your Behavioural Economist's (very important to capitalise that title) confidence and insight. Thanks for stopping by.
Haha. Love this!! My thoughts exactly!