I am open to this concept but I don't think I'm being cynical when I say that most people would surely think the opposite when they hear the expression PhD Economist.
An example of groupthink?
If you haven't studied economics in graduate school, you may not be aware that the field is very different than what is taught in traditional undergraduate economics classes. There are different branches, of course, but the field emphasizes modeling and acceptance of initially-unintuitive results based on careful analysis of system dynamics.
Many people can think through the second-order effects (and beyond) of some policy change. Economists are just one group that has been trained to do so.
Freshwater macro, for one.
And I meant "an example" in the sense that justifying a thought on the basis that "most people think" is an example of groupthink.
I found freshwater thinking to be refreshingly criticized in my department. I suppose we were a little closer to the coast than the lakes.
Many people associate 'economist' with politicized talking heads arguing about ideological issues, but that is a tiny fraction of the profession, just like the most politicized tech CEOs are the tiny fraction of the tech community that gets the most outside attention.
Economists routinely are placed in politically powerful positions, invariably due in large part to their professed views on economics being in line with a dominant political (aka rich cabal or pro-industry) view of economics.
If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world.
But the fundamental problems in economics remain:
- if you can't measure it, it doesn't really exist to economics, especially to academics - if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study
Of course those two points are slight exaggerations, but if one views the long course of economic study, they become pretty apparent.
Economics can predict 'disaster' but does not have anything to say about whether or not disaster should be avoided.
To give an example closer to home, in W. Africa predominant economists believe (but do not publicly say) the AIDs crises is not a general threat to humanity. AIDs rates will increase until a peak point, then society will self-correct whether this is via enforced monogamy rituals, enhanced testing, stigmatisation of carriers, wide-spread STD protection, better medical care for carriers to prevent morality, or other methods is besides the point.
What method you choose to promote is a political question, not an economic one. Just because something increases X in circumstance A, does not bear into question if circumstance A is really something you want even if X is "lower mortality rates".
Economists in international organisations learn this truth, and have to be extremely careful not to substitute their own personal bias, or the preferences of their society for that of their client. For a non-morbid example, working in the US an economists would be tasks to report on how to best expand the existing highway system. Taking a step back, and saying "we should all use bullet trains and live in dense cities", isn't going to be appreciated as the 'American Dream' is predicated on suburban living.
It was not and has not been my experience that the majority or even plurality of economists support "Reaganomics" or "oligarchical capitalism". There are some famous and outspoken economists that are often quoted by politicians, but the rank and file are generally ignored.
Of politically powerful people, it seems to me that most are lawyers. The second largest cohort is perhaps businesspeople as a general category. I'm not sure where economists would rank, but they're not common in politics outside of the Federal Reserve.
I'm not sure why an academic discipline being "up to snuff" would make much difference for policy. I've never known politicians (as a whole) to appreciate science, except for military applications. The economists have been saying we should put a tax on carbon for decades. There are entire departments dedicated to "environmental economics", studying how to coordinate fisheries to avoid population collapse, how to manage forests, etc. Their policy recommendations are largely ignored. An economic system is an outcome of a socio-political system, not some exogenous phenomenon.
> if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study
This is false. I'm not sure what else to say. I suppose the recent years of truthiness and fake news have worn away my resistance.
> those two points are slight exaggerations, but ... apparent
More than slight, and not apparent to me.
> if you can't measure it, it doesn't ... exist
Much of econometric literature concerns how to measure things that are difficult to measure. This includes ineffable things like "freedom" or "happiness".
As a 'trained' historian we were always looking down on the economists for their 'groupthink' tendencies. And on most fellow historians, and pretty much everyone in history.
It's a cheap shot, but armies of trained economists failed to spot (or do anything useful about) the credit bubble, the consequences of which we are still failing to deal with.
Banks failed to inform anyone that they had essentially broken their Chinese wall between the investing & lending divisions. They also failed to inform anyone that they were bundling good credit and bad credit structures, then rubber stamping the whole thing as AAA credit.
Would these issues have been found out eventually? Sure, but:
- The US markets are large and filled with sophisticated people who know just how to hide things. Governments/private corps in emerging economies try the same thing, but they're stymied by a lack of no how on how to fudge data
- Even in the case of poor fudging, you can't find all of it instantaneously and can't comment prematurely
Classic groupthink :)