Letter from the Editor
By Ross Raffin, published January, 2010
Economics is a discipline of models. When many people hear economic theories, they ask questions like “but what about all of the other factors?” For instance, how can a “rational actor” model of the stock market, where all investors are omniscient cost-benefit machines, predict the psychologically-driven and irrational choices of actual stock-holders? How can models of supply and demand competition make accurate predictions when they ignore the ulterior and sometimes irreconciliable motives of CEOs, chairman, and other important individual actors?
The simple answer is that, at the end of the day, no single model in economics is entirely accurate. This is purposeful, since any particular event has an enormous number of contributing causes. Models simplify events by picking out specific ranges of contributing causes in order to better understand their effects. The problem is that sometimes economists ignore reality in favor of these models. This affords a sense of academic legitimacy hereby allowing self-motivated politicians to advance potentially disastrous economic policies under the guise of intellectualism.
For instance, when analyzing government policies, some economists might focus on the effect of tax cuts on business while another might focus on the effect of tax cuts on government revenue. A proponent of tax cuts might cite models which show the positive effects predicted from tax cuts. The opponent could champion the second model.
Thus, economists are entrenched in the generally unfathomable wars of Keynesians vs monetarists, neo-classical economics vs Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis, and other dichotomies which almost no one other than economists understand. Politicians and pundits then pick and choose among these models to satisfy their ideology before bombarding the public. These political elites conflate models with reality to the detriment of uninformed American citizens.
This issue of The Stanford Progressive focuses less on evangelizing a particular model and more on describing and inspecting the state of the American and world economy. One article focuses on a technological innovation, Cloud Computing, which promises to vastly decrease the barriers stopping many entrepreneurs from starting their own firms. Another article emphasizes that an answer to the growing deficit lies in health care reform. Other articles challenge some more fundamental assumptions about economics, such as whether economic growth necessarily leads to increased happiness. Another explores unemployment from a personal perspective. Each writer brings to the table a different economic and world perspective. However, none of them are the “correct” means of interpreting economics. No model or perspective is entirely accurate. Be wary of any politician, pundit, or panderer who claims otherwise.
Leave a comment »
Share this Article
- Cubs' first postseason series win in Wrigley Field worth the wait - ESPN
- Flight MH17 downed by Buk fired from east Ukraine, Dutch say - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- New Hubble Images Delve Deep Into Jupiter's Mysterious Red Spot [Video] - Tech Times
- Fire Rescue captain: 'Unknown number of victims' in mobile home park plane crash - Sun Sentinel
- Former NBA star Lamar Odom found unconscious, taken to Nevada hospital - ESPN
- First Democratic Debate 2015: Highlights and Analysis - New York Times
- Planned Parenthood stops accepting payment for fetal tissue used for research - Los Angeles Times
- Leaderless Palestinian Youth, Inspired by Social Media, Drive a Rise in Violence - New York Times
- Verdict: Jury rules against woman who sued boy over hug - Atlanta Journal Constitution
- Two Officers Were Shot; Wisconsin Store Liable for Gun Sale - New York Times
The hush-hush of politics is controlling a segment of people without those people recognizing the... (Perspective: Occupy Stanford, Occupy The Future, and Why Care? )
yeah you are right, internet does provides a bridge between politicians and common people, i have... (Democracy Is Not A Spectator Sport: Lobbying For Your Interests)
That the question, Who cares if I sign this petition? (Democracy Is Not A Spectator Sport: Lobbying For Your Interests)
Yes Lee, the similarities between 1932 and 2011 are very strong.
The two prevailing factors to m... (Social Unrest and Money Printing: Is 2011 America's New 1932?)
The more I read the more depressed I become. There are now millions of former WWII children of wa... (Norway’s New Prisons: Could They Work Here?)