Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgv | Hacker News Reader

> Efficiency is important, but we valorize it over other ends. Many subscribe ... to the stronger version that says that economists should focus on efficiency and leave equity to others, to politicians or administrators. But the others regularly fail to materialize, so that when efficiency comes with upward redistribution ... our recommendations become little more than a license for plunder.

I would say: the others do not only fail to materialize, they often point back at economists. If a politician wants to raise taxes, wellfare, or nurses' salaries, the opposing arguments are more often than not economic in nature, and rely on the invisible hand.

It does not follow that economists should take the place of politicians, though. Instead, they should be much more honest, open and direct about their claims, and also point out alternatives. They should, so to speak, grow a conscience.

View on HN

Indeed. Politicians point back at economists, and economists usually answer "oh, it's fine, just deregulate everything and manna will trickle down from the heavens eventually". It would do them good to be a bit less full of themselves.

I wish they said that. Unfortunately economists are usually keynsian and prefer to believe that war or burying money create wealth.

Just this notion of Keynesian vs. Austrian and what have you is proof that Economics is not a science and closer to religion.

> this notion of Keynesian vs. Austrian and what have you is proof

This is like taking the existence of Darwinian and Lamarkian evolution as proof that biology is not a science. You're quoting caricatures of old ideas.

I'm not sure the evolution and biology is the same thing.

Precisely. Keynesianism and Austrian orthodoxy are not the same as economics.

Given how economics (and science) are used in politics, not sure that would work. Usually economics are used to support an already made decision - then suppressing cherry picking is practically close to impossible.

> does not follow that economists should take the place of politicians

It's basically settled science that economies with independent central banks outperform those with politcally-captured ones.

I mean, I have a strong prior that while this may be true, it's also a mix shift effect, in that the countries with independent central banks also have better rule of law, better education systems and were richer than other countries before they introduced independent central banks.

in other term, putting back the social word in the old term "socio-economy"

> If a politician wants to raise taxes, wellfare, or nurses' salaries, the opposing arguments are more often than not economic in nature, and rely on the invisible hand.

Interestingly, the arguments for increasing salaries also rest on the invisible hand-like assumptions that higher wages make workers better/happier.

If you want to see arguments on these topics without much or any market based arguments I’d recommend looking into Soviet, Nazi or Maoist writings.

So nice of you to mention the top-3 vilest regimes of the last century without as much as hand-waiving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com