Economists: Lawyers? Shysters? Touts?
Paul Krugman has taken aim at the profession here and here. It is not just being wrong sometimes…
by Sandwichman at Econospeak writes:
Economists: Lawyers? Shysters? Touts?
“Basically, a lot of economists use the tools of science to accomplish literary– or lawyerly — goals.” — Noah Smith, Economics Isn’t Science or Literature
If that’s the case, what’s “the law“? What are the standards of evidence? I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the extensive reliance on “hearsay” in economics — that is to say the flippant attitude of economists toward sources — and about the preponderance of alibi stories (again with scant regard for proving the alibi). Unlike the legal profession, there is no formal professional code of ethics for economists. So, where do we draw the line between “lawyer” and “shyster”?
“…’shyster’ lawyers — a set of turkey-buzzards whose touch is pollution and whose breath is pestilence” — “The Tombs,” New York in Slices (1849)
“In England, although we have not the term ‘shyster,’ we have the animal thereby designated, and he is said to be particularly rife at the Old Bailey. A shyster is a tout, and touting may be practised either by a barrister, or by his clerk, or by his post or future clients… But in New York the shyster ventures upon proceedings from which the English tout would shrink. He makes his way into the prisons, and informs the prisoners committed for trial that he has great influence, and in some cases ‘he goes so far as to say that he controls, aye, even owns the court and district attorney.'” — The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art (1871)
“The complaint one makes against that anti-social jargon, which so easily passes for economic science, is that it is in ludicrous opposition to the common observation of facts. Political economy professes to be a science based on observation. But the bitter pedantry which often usurps that name usually assumes its facts, after it has rounded off dogmas to suit its clients. In practice this magazine of untruth escapes detection for two reasons. One is that the facts relating to labour are invariably seen through the spectacles of capital…. The second reason which obscures the truth about industry is, that the facts about capital are almost never honestly disclosed.” — Frederic Harrison, Fortnightly Review (1872)
Update: (Lest we forget):
“In addition to business and government, Mr. Ferguson aims his critique at academia, suggesting that the discipline of economics and more than a few prominent economists were corrupted by consulting fees, seats on boards of directors and membership in the masters of the universe club.
“When he challenges some of these professors, in particular those who held positions of responsibility in the White House or in the Federal Reserve, they are reduced to stammering obfuscation — Markets are complicated! Who could have predicted? I don’t see any conflict of interest — and occasionally provoked to testiness.” — A. O. Scott, New York Times review of “Inside Job” (2010).
I don’t think any discussion of the rampant corruption of academic economists can be complete without this perfect moment from “Inside Job”. Glen Hubbard of Columbia Grad School of Business ladies and gentlemen!
In the past I have touted economist as being ‘advocates’ which is to say slightly less shyster-y shysters. On the other hand that category includes Mafia lawyers. Who at one level are just professionals trying to do their job of keeping their (admittedly) guilty clients out of Federal prison.
But as I read Krugman on the failure of many of his opponents to even engage on evidentiary terms I want to revise my remarks:
Most academic economists, particularly but not exclusively those on the left, are neither shysters or touts or laywer/advocates, not at least at the center of their being. Instead they actually go back to an older professional category:
They are theologians. ‘Apologists’ in its original sense.
Back in the day I was a budding medieval historian and as such ran across arguments from some of the most brilliant scholar/philosphers of that very long age. You could start with St. Augustine from just before the Dawn of the Middle Ages, through St. Anselm at its 11th-12th century height to Descartes a century or so after the Middle Ages are conventionally seen to close. And each, most explicitly the latter two had very deep and If I say so quite convincing Proofs of the Existence of God. See ‘Ontological Proof’. Now I flatter myself that I can see the fundamental error in these proofs. But most of that is because the promoters and I come at this from very different stances.
Me I demand proof in the face of skepticism. They, including Descartes who ostensibly starts his argument from skepticism and doubt, actually had no intention of coming to any other conclusion than the one they reached. Augustine and Anselm and Descartes were capital B Believers and they would have been (in their minds literally) Hell bound if they had not come up with satisfactory proofs. That is there is actually zero chance that Descartes would have sat dumbfouned at his desk after DIS-proving the Existence of God, no that simply means there would have had to be some error in his chain of reasoning.
It is for this reason that I am not tbe only one to waggishly refer to St. Miltie of Chicago: neither he nor his acolytes would ever, COULD ever come to any other conclusion than that of Free Markets and Capitalism equal Freedom. Such things are at the core of their Faith and those who would object on any other grounds than tactical (e.g Cartesian ‘doubt’) are simply expelled from the Church.
Meaning that their response to Professor Krugman being “Tired of Explaining this to You All” is “DIE, HERETIC, DIE!”
From a conceptual basis the main difference between a Theologian/Apologists and a Mafia Lawyer/Shyster/Advocate is that the latter need be under no illusion about his client. Whereas Theologicans work for the Big Man in the Sky.
And you don’t win theological arguments with Theologians. At best you can battle them to a stalemate. Which for them just means they need to go back and find better arguments for promoting the Good News.
Or to put it all in a different, more familiar trope: “Classical and Neo-Classical Economics cannot Fail, it can only Be Failed”. Just like Communism and Libertarianism. You just have to find a way to do all of them right in the face of mockers and apostates.
“They are theologians…”
It is best to think of this description as NOT a metaphor. Equilibrium was/is a pure theological notion.
Consider Pascal’s wager. It is not strictly a theological argument. It is an exercise in probabilities. A key premise is that belief follows behavior. If one behaves as if one believed in God, eventually one will believe in God. Economists behave as if they believe in equilibrium.
Yes I was not speaking in metaphors.
I make similar arguments about big C Conservatism. It in in my view built very literally around an equally big C Center. But oh no not the political ‘Center’ which is a metaphor based on a spectrum. Instead Conservatism is Concentric and is defined AND defended by layered defenses. ‘Property Rights’ are at the heart of multiple of those layers, while ‘Gun rights’ are only at some of the outer ones. And ‘Patriarchy’ is right tight at the Core, it is the center of the Onion of Conservatism. And from within the Onion it is logically defensible. It only looks morally perverse viewed from outside the ‘limes’ (which is not a citrus here).
Even with regard to those theological niceties, there remains the mumpsimus sumpsimus problem.
“I was delighted to find in a dictionary the word mumpsimus, which means stubborn persistence in an error that has been exposed” — Joan Robinson
Well the analogy falls apart once you consider the large sums paid to high priests like Glenn Hubbard in the you tube link above. His devotion was bought and paid for which is why he gets so amusingly pi$$y.
But then I reflect on the way the televangelists profit handsomely from “gaining the whole world” and think maybe not.
Au contraire, filthy lucre strengthens the theology analogy. Entered in one column of the ledger, the canon law proscription against usury. In the other column, the pious alibi testifying to the derivation “elsewhere” of the suspected interest on the suspected loan.
Thanks for the chuckle
Perhaps Fr. Glenn Hubbard was only selling indulgences.
Can economics manage a reformation? Is there an economic Martin Luther?
“Is there an economic Martin Luther?”
Paul Krugman is tired of nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to Gregory Mankiw’s ass. Becuase Herr Prof Mankiw never seems to feel the sting. And manages to sell a Bazillion copies of his various Principles textbooks aside.
Remember that the Reformation did not destroy the Chruch nor did the Counter Reformation in any important way save it. Not at least outside its core territories. You would be hard pressed to identify any kind of Protestant Pope prior to the tres limited example of John XXIII. And even he is getting Sainted (and so de-Protestinized) in a hurry.
Can Economics manage a Reformation? Sure. But they are not going to stop teaching Jesuitism at the many, many colleges sponsored by the Society of Jesus (i.e. the Jesuits). Because Jesuit scholars are literally graduated from tough schools. You might find many such with soft hearts but pretty much all have hard heads. And don’t go much in for apostasy.
And to complete the metaphor don’t expect much more surrender from the Acolytes of St. Miltie. That is not how Jesuits/Neo-Classicists/Monetarists roll.
Oddly enough, Cardinal Newman nailed it back in the 1850s when he criticized the arrogance presumption of Nassau Senior in his The Idea of the University. The object of Newman’s critique was Senior’s inaugural lecture in 1827 as the first professor of political economy at Oxford. (see “John Henry Newman, Nassau Senior, and the Separation of Political Economy from Theology in the Nineteenth Century,” Paul Oslington, History of Political Economy, 2001).
Here’s some juicy bits:
“Now observe, Gentlemen, how exactly this bears out what I have been saying. It is just so far true, as to be able to instil what is false… let us rather contemplate what the author’s [Senior’s] direct assertion is. ‘The endeavour to accumulate the means of future subsistence and enjoyment, is to the mass of mankind, the great source…’ not merely a source, but the great source, and of what? of social and political progress?—such an answer would have been more within the limits of his art,—no, but of something individual and personal, ‘of moral improvement.’
“‘No institution,’ he continues, ‘could be more beneficial to the morals of the lower orders… than one which should increase their power and their wish to accumulate…’ But it is not enough that morals and happiness are made to depend on gain and accumulation ; the practice of Religion is ascribed to these causes also, and in the following way. Wealth depends upon the pursuit of wealth; education depends upon wealth; knowledge depends on education; and Religion depends on knowledge; therefore Religion depends on‘ the pursuit of wealth.”
There you have it.”it was Senior . . . who was the most important writer on scope and method among the classical economists, and the one whose work was most influential for the twentieth century development of economic methodology.” Senior’s vindication of political economy? Religion depends on the pursuit of wealth.
Senior’s “fundamental assumption” of political economy (derived from introspection): “That every person is desirous to obtain, with as little sacrifice as possible, as much as possible of the articles of wealth.”
T. W. Hutchison exposed the flaw in Senior’s fundamental assumption. It relies on a premise of perfect foresight. But with perfect foresight there would be no “choice” no need for rationality. People would automatically just do the one thing that maximized their wealth for minimum effort.
Apologies for the telegraphic presentation. I’ll hopefully post a more coherent narrative soon.
The revised and expanded version of above jottings:
“On Deducing Faith and Redemption from Usury with the Help of Automata”
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2014/09/on-deducing-faith-and-redemption-from.html
“Art for art’s sake – money for god’s sake” – 10cc