David Colander: Does "Economics" Have Too Much Influence Over Policy?

By Wayne Brown

The best way to understand an issue is sometimes to follow the debate rather than just one "side." I had bogged down trying to understand Monetary Theory (Modern or otherwise).

This is an introduction to the thinking of David Colander. I tripped over him when reading "Modern Monetary Theory and its Critics." Colander presents himself as a "Historian of Ideas." He is a "big picture" guy who tries to understand ideas in depth but also concerning their real historical consequence.

For example, he points out that if MMT were applied by, say, the Tea Party, the result would be a nightmare (zero tax, no government). This provides a simple example of one assumption behind all economic "recommendations" - that the supporters are in political power - more or less permanently. After plodding through endless economic arguments, I also get a whiff of "motivated reasoning."

Beware of all statements that include other things being equal. "Things" are never equal. No proposed change can be made without effects on other factors, nor can the change be made while other changes are not being made. 

Colander distinguishes between economics as a theory of control (Keynsian and all its variations) and economics that simply provides inputs to decision makers.  "Conservatives" oppose any attempt to "control" the economy. The problem is that "hands off" cedes control to impersonal mechanisms such as the market and powerful politicians. Politicians, after all, are not elected by proposing sensible economic policy. They are elected by being the "last man standing" in a mud wrestling contest. Yet, it is politicians who ultimately control the levers of economic power. As Greenspan pointed out - sometimes, these "levers" don't seem connected to the real economy.

Truly modern economics is based on huge computer models of the economy - not a few simple "all things being equal" relationships like "supply and demand."  In any model, things like assumptions and initial conditions need to be made explicit. For example, "actors" are not assumed to have perfect knowledge or to behave rationally, as all "classic" economic theories assume. Everything is connected to everything else.

It is good to understand some economics, but it needs to be kept in context. Economics places constraints on what is possible. We must never assume that politicians in control or society, in general, will agree with any particular economic theory or act the way economists assume.

To cite the nastiest problem we now face, climate change is a problem that comes from physics, not economics. Solutions, if any, will come by massive changes to human behavior. Economic "incentives" are proving to play little if any useful role, yet the political debate is often couched in the fantasies of obsolete economics, such as growth and GDP.

---------------

P.S. A talk by Colander about complexity theory and its relevance to politics is here. Again the point is that "economics" is just one of many influences in the halls of power. "Government and markets are an odd married couple. Stuck with each other". He talks about placing an economic "frame" in the larger (complex) "meta-frame".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dennis Hoffman and The Nature of Reality

By Wayne Brown
Image
Perplexity Massive data loss.... The great math mystery "Math works so well to describe reality because math is all there is." just 32 numbers and a bit of math Lex Fridman & Dennis Hoffman The Case Against Reality (In Kindle) This may be the wrong question: Does math work so well because it's how we perceive reality or is math a fundamental property of the Universe? Missing is the idea that consciousness itself is essential and that a mathematical description of consciousness could be "fundamental" - more "fundamental" than what we think of as "reality." "The elegance of math meets the messiness of reality" - but this is a clue to how we simplify reality for efficiency. 
Read more

Panic Part 6 - The IPCC Summary for Policymakers

By Wayne Brown
Image
Love it or hate it, the discussion revolves around this report Bottom line: I accept the IPCC report as a kind of "hub" around which my view of climate issues must turn. It is important to understand what it is saying, along with its limitations. Legions of cherry pickers have descended on this report - many to raise alarm, many to rebut, many to blow smoke over it. It is not difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to read the report itself, especially to examine the baskets of cherries emerging from the forest. Generally speaking, I have found critics of the report to be highly misleading. To call the report "alarmist" is perhaps simply to admit that there is no shortage of worrying facts in the report. For example, the frequently cited concern of the "alarmists" - namely sea-level rise - is completely well documented. To me, the "let them drown" response at COP26 forms the basis of my assumption that the politicians of the world will not...
Read more

A Challenge to the "Settled Science" Meme

By Wayne Brown
Image
I've read at least a dozen books on the climate issue in the last month. This is the best. Koonin is not just another "skeptic." His approach to the matter rises above "controversy" and depends on evidence. Yet, he acknowledges where the panic is coming from. A lecture by Koonin covers much of the key material and provides color versions of the slides, which are black and white in the book. Another interview, without the slides, is here . In reading IPCC reports, it's evident that the "summaries" don't "summarize" the actual science. The ultimate summary, the speech by the head of the IPCC , bristles with inaccuracies and has no message beyond panic. As a senior climate scientist, Koonin provides some startling stories of the "blow-back" he gets by simply asking for an independent review of IPCC conclusions. In fact, there was a brief attempt to cripple such a review by denying federal funds to any study that challenged t...
Read more