For the most part, economists aren't ideologues. They perform research and publish their findings. Those findings happen to support the predefined ideology of one or another political persuasion, and the economist who published his/her findings gets tagged by ideologues as being in this or that ideological camp. Given their druthers, economists would discard normative economic notions and stick to and implement policy based almost purely on the findings of positive economics.
Like anyone else, economists are prone to becoming infected with a political ideology. Once that happens, objectivity, curiosity and rationality go out the window, as with any other ideologue. And the higher that economist is on the food chain, the more damage that affliction can cause. And I refer to the examples I listed above.
Indeed, most economists are able to avoid this affliction. Maybe it's the teevee camera that exacerbates the infection.
.
Indeed, most economists are able to avoid this affliction. Maybe it's the teevee camera that exacerbates the infection.
I think economists don't suffer from that affliction because they are, for the most part, very self-assured and confident individuals who are well aware of what their accomplishments and failures are, and as a result, don't need the approbation or gratification that comes from being recognized by the general public.
To be perfectly honest, I don't see economists appearing all that much on mass market television programs. On the other hand, I do see them appear as panelists at symposia, as speakers at lectures, participants in seminars, etc. Being invited to do so, however, results from the substantive analytical work they perform and publish. Indeed, I dare say that economists appear on television so infrequently that the average voter/American cannot name any five current U.S.' or global leading economists and identify in broad terms why they are such. (I suspect too that the average voter can't name ten of history's most relevant economists and why they are/were such.)
Make no mistake, there is disagreement among economists about the esoterica of the discipline and about the efficacy of certain means (policy) that may be implemented to achieve "this or that" end. The reason they disagree about that is there isn't resounding consensus about the elements various researchers/analysts include or disinclude in their econometric modeling. For example, as goes trade policy, what factors are or are not righly included in the
gravity model used to assess the impact of any given policy approach or topical area of consideration. [1] Most of the key factors are agreed upon; however, there are a few that are not, and among those few, for better or worse, are some that can, if included/excluded, result in the model miltating for or against a given policy approach.
That said, there is not disagreement among economists about the basics of the discipline. [2] That is why there is resounding disapproval among economists for Trump's trade policies, and his recently announced tariffs. His tariffs fly in the face of over a century's worth of very sound and well established empirical and theoretical research and findings therefrom. Put another way, it doesn't mater what key factors one may include or omit from one's gravity modeling, putting in a tariff of the nature Trump's announced produces deleterious outcomes. It is for that reason that there resounding agreement about the absurdity and ill advised nature of Trump's tariff.
Of course, there is a huge reason why economists generally eschew mass market television news:
- Economists know that economics, like all sciences, isn't nearly as simplistic as most people would like to believe, yet despite what economists share, the public, knowing nothing (or next to nothing) about the subject matter, will nonetheless pontifically refute the legitimacy of what they just heard an actual economist identify or describe. Serious people who bother to discuss serious matters simply aren't keen to having to defend their strongly substantiated distillations of facts and findings to folks like that.
Aside:
BTW, you might wonder how one can know roughly the extent to which general public understands economics.
An anecdotal way to know is to have an econ degree and thus know quite well what formal training is needed to understand economics and be roughly aware of how few folks graduated with one when they earned one's own econ degree(s). More broadly and reliably, however, one need only look at econ degree conferral metrics and relationship between demand for economists and the supply of them. For instance, in 2015, ~43.6K undergraduate economics degrees were awarded. (I don't know what are the metrics on the number of people who, in the U.S., minor in or obtain associate degrees in economics. I do know that some quantity in excess of a million people annually earn baccalaureate degrees.) Approximately 1000 individuals per year complete an economics PhD, which, as a practical matter, is the degree one must have to work explicitly as a practicing economist, as opposed to working as an applied economics professional in a corporate or governmental capacity.
At the relatively basic level of most public policy discourse, a BS in Economics (or BA in economics if one went to Wharton or another school that labels any degree in business as an economics degree) is sufficient for reviewing the merits of the proposals politicians express. On the other hand, having a master's degree in economics is enough to know immediately the nature and extent to which politicians bastardize the sound economic advice they receive.
- While economists aren't necessarily misanthropic, neither are they in general seekers of the sort celebrity that comes from appearing on mass market television shows. Think about it. The presidents of any of the Federal Reserve banks could, if they wanted to be, be nightly on the news offering whatever commentary they want to. When was the last time you saw any of them on the news and how often does that happen?
Note:
- One can observe firsthand one element of debate among economists by reading the follow papers:
- What are some of the basics upon which economists overwhelmingly agree?
he didn't.
