I hate to sound derivative, but I'd love to lie tangent to your curves

[Viking Prince]

from the Economist Blogs

SORRY, that's how to pick up an economist. Greg Mankiw wants to know what it would look like if political candidates pandered to economists, focusing on spheres where there is a broad consensus in the field. The economist-friendly platform is pro-trade, anti-subsidy, light on regulations but friendly to taxes on energy consumption, and pro–skilled immigration. That might not be a bad platform for pandering to The Economist either.
But I can't help but note that what's popular with economists is wildly unpopular with either the general electorate or with crucial constituencies for whom a particular issue is highly salient. Recent polls show majorities or pluralities almost uniformly regarding free trade and globalisation as net harms to the United States. Ditto increasing immigration. The general public may be more amenable to cutting farm subsidies, but the average American isn't exactly preparing to man the barricades over the issue, and the massive margins agripork bills win from Congress suggest that legislators know a cash crop when they see one. Which is to say, with apologies to Plato, Mr Mankiw's platform is unlikely to be enacted until economists rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately economise.

Hmmm? Looks like the economists are not with the majority this election.

[Adar]

I've bought one issue of the economist (may 2007) and most of it was in one way or another try to portray a message that we are not going to see a recession in the near future and the stock market will be fine (and Russia is evil!). I figured that if the economists are feeling such a need to talk about a recession that is not going to happen, then I think that we might be heading for one and pulled all my money out of the stock market .

From my limited experience are they nothing more than a bunch of pretentious dolts who spend way to much time on economic theory rather than actually trying to understand the world.

Edit: I just realised that the front page was "The coronation of king Brown" or something along those lines. Showing Brown as a 19th century king being crowned. Isn't he less popular than prince Harry in a nazi suit right now?

Edit 2: The article is sadly "premium" but I find the readers comments (except the first one) to be far better than the article. I also think recent history proves the commentors to be far more right than the article.

[roy34543]

Well if a reccesion is the economist type-term of 2 quarters of negative growth then it is in fact unlikely america will see a reccesation.
Yeah it sometimes has a anti-russia bias.

As to the OP, Its true economists tend to focus on the idea that everyone wants to be as rich as possible, and dont focus as much on every single other issue in existance.

[Nikitn]

The economist can burn in hell for what I care. But it gives me a laugh everytime I read something there.

[bushbush]

the economists drew those conclusions based on the results of their models.

average joes can't understand those .

i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher-Ohlin_model

only if most Americans can take some college courses on economics. They would see why free-trade is better.

[Viking Prince]

only if most Americans can take some college courses on economics. They would see why free-trade is better.

Yes, EVERYONE should take several courses in economics. It will at least employ economists in the classroom. One of the few locations that academics are required to actually explain what they are doing in plain language.

Seriously though, I thought the phrasing on this was so typical of why I like to read the Economist.

For those who do not read the magazine because it simply does not support your viewpoint, why read anything then? I enjoy reading quite a bit that I do not agree with. Even when there are flaws in the logic or presentation, I learn something worthwhile.

[roy34543]

They actually really simplify economics so the average joe can understand it in the economist. Though its still relatively speaking boring, I prefer the political bits.
And yes the economist supports increasing immigration.

http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=10193441

[bushbush]

They actually really simplify economics so the average joe can understand it in the economist. Though its still relatively speaking boring, I prefer the political bits.

once you get past the ugly graphs and some math, the conclusions are very interesting.