Ah yes. Small-c conservatism (whatever that means?) and their rules of the game to supposedly raise all boats. Except it clearly has not worked out that way. The question isn't whether there will be rules - there will always be rules. The question is which rules. Conservatives across the board claim allegiance to the "free market" unfettered by government interference ... until they don't. They are more than willing to use rules to enhance the economic and political positions of their backers - but when it comes to the rest of us struggling just to pay rent, the rules that favor a more universal prosperity (e.g., labor unions, child care and the like) get tossed out the window and stomped on. I no longer have any faith whatsoever that conservatives (or Conservatives) are either willing to or capable of governing the whole country and its many peoples. The operative concept since at least Reagan (and probably longer) has been screw the least of us (contrary to Matthew 25:40). If America is prosperous, it's in spite of conservatism, not because of it. At this point, finding a conservative to chat with whom I can respect or like is a waste of my time, as respect for what they have wrought and at what cost is something I simply cannot muster. As an aside, I am a just a college educated normal person, not an economist, but I can't quite grasp how an economist can feign political neutrality when there is so much devastation around us that is being either ignored or buoyed by current conservative (Conservative) dogma. I also can't grasp how someone such as you can favorably consider a rightward turn. If you decide to become a conservative (Conservative?), it'll be mighty disappointing to this ordinary reader.
I'm not sure if I've used the term small-c conservative correctly. I meant "conservative" as in "to conserve." When we have rules that work, I think we ought to be careful about changing them. Don't throw away what ain't broke.
I can't quite comprehend how you can say, "it ain't broke." Everywhere I look these days, I see massive "broke." And I believe it's systemic "broke." Take, for example, appliances - say, water heaters. Back in my youth, in the 1960s and '70s, we had the same water heater for the 18 years I grew up in my house in Houston. While it sometimes needed repairs, that was only on rare occasions - and certainly, we never had to replace the thing b/c the cost of parts and labor sucked the air out of my parents' lungs. These days, it's planned obsolescence for everything, with "planned" being the operative concept. This may be a great business model for a company's executives and share holders, but it sucks for everyone else. Nothing works - in my view, deliberately. If anything, conservative "rules" haven't worked at all, except for the aforementioned corporate execs and shareholders. Granted - hot water heaters are a great invention, but only if they aren't made to break in about 7 years (what we were told by a plumber friend that today's average water heater life is). So I guess my real question is how you can say the system ain't broke for most of us - the ones for whom the current system sucks?
Except so many things are broken. So many Supreme Court justices appointed by the same president. Majority leaders of the Senate who refuse to abide by the rules for filling vacancies. A Speaker of the House who shuts down the session to avoid votes that are likely to go against the president's wishes. Politicians who pretend to be one thing and turn out to be the opposite (Susan Collins, John Fetterman, Maria Elvira Salazar). A politician (Rick Scott) who, as a businessman, defrauded Medicare and got away with it, and got elected to a federal seat where he can vote on Medicare. A federal official, Mark Meadows, who was registered to vote in three states simultaneously (vote early and often, eh Mark?). All sorts of political action committees running all sorts of secret schemes to funnel money to politicians. Politicians who care more about about getting re-elected than about representing their constituents or about upholding their oath to protect the Constitution. Voters who don't know who their representative or senator is and who get their news from Facebook instead of from a newspaper.
I feel anxious and dizzy looking at the picture of those men eating their lunch on a beam somewhere high above—a city, a body of water? Whatever it is, it made me queasy!
I appreciate your honesty and perspective. I recently shared one of your postings with my husband because I found it so helpful and illuminating. He read it and said, "In general I agree, but his perspective is very biased." :)
Perhaps most economists end up as anti-Trump because they, despite their biases, have a primary goal of helping the economy, balancing budgets, and generally functioning from a "good for the world or people" perspective. One could never accuse Donald Trump of this. I'll stop there, otherwise my pure bias will rear its head—though it is comforting to know my bias aligns so perfectly with economic science!
Dear Professor Wolfers. First of all, I must apologize for my exuberance in responding to your thoughts and articles. In my defense and to your credit, I find your approach thought provoking and relevant for the turbulent era that engulfs us, addressing not only economics but historical and sociological issues.
Your comment, "I’m more comfortable with data, and trying to understand the empirical reality of a specific market in the here and now" is similar to a comment made by a history professor of mine during undergraduate school. He remarked, while travelling in Europe and Western Asia, that he felt equally oppressed in Spain as he did in the then Soviet Union. He explained that his view of authoritarianism was not represented by a horizontal line but a sphere. The more leftist one became, the closer one became to a rightist way of thinking.
When it comes to the current administration, the terms left, right, liberal, conservative, progressive or reactionary can be thrown out the window. The term that might best describe our current climate is chaotic. Government oppression today with immigrant concentration camps and a national police state under ICE control. Unapproved tariffs and military action against foreign entities. Capitalism running amuck with tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, disintegration of the social safety net, and the reduction or elimination of needed health benefits for the unfortunate. Reduction or elimination of vehicle emission standards. Who can keep track of the list?
With the mid-term elections approaching there is a possibility that policy chaos can change. This is not an end all, but only the first step. It was considered that it would take 20 years to diminish the damage of the 2nd Bush administration. We received only eight years prior to Trump. We have a long struggle ahead.
Not "chaotic." The word you need is "fascist." Government willing to get into bed with corporations in an alliance against the people, as long as the corporations will kowtow to the dictator. Think Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, and to some extent Oliveira Salazar in Portugal.
Good discussion, especially between CindyO, Justin Wolfers, and Judy. I'm a liberal Democrat. I agree with Paul Krugman's idea of why we should have an economy: the "ultimate goal of an economy isn't wealth, it's well-being." And I think he means the well-being of all the people.
In order to claim that he's a conservative, Justin Wolfers has staked out a very narrow definition of conservatism limited to those who value the rules of the game that have served us well for generations. By that definition, I'm a conservative, too.
CindyO wrote two well-justified polemics against President Trump and the Conservative Republican Party and I agree with her. Trump lied right from the start at his inauguration when he took the President’s oath of office falsely, with his fingers crossed behind his back. Republican Senators and Representatives had decided right from the beginning that they would never fulfill their oaths of office like normal members of an American political party. In effect, they set about forming a "fifth column" in our country ("...a secret group of people who work from the inside to undermine a larger group, nation, or organization, usually to help an outside enemy.”). They took the manifesto called Project 2025 as their guidebook and have no loyalty to the Constitution or the people they represent. Instead, they are rigidly loyal to Trump. The only response we can have to this is to resist and defeat them next month at the voting booth.
It was reassuring to hear you outline values inherent in your field. It is consistent with your "economics is life" mission. Your Platypals are with you.
I'm a scientist and one of the things I learned from my professors was that everyone has a bias. It may be political, historical, technical, or something else, but everyone has one. The best you can do, they taught me, was to be aware of your biases when you evaluate data or policy and admit them publicly when necessary.
Two things stand out in today’s piece. The first has to do with the think tanks you mentioned in which many of your colleagues work. While we are all guilty of having a point of view, and I share your belief that we are obligated to spend time walking around in someone else;s shoes, that doesn’t applies to Think Tanks. Think Tanks are by definition biased. They were organized and are paid for by groups or individuals committed to a particular ideology as a way to impose that ideology on the rest of us. The orientation of these organizations shapes the research they do, the conclusions drawn from that research, and ultimately the policies that are its results. Each of the Think Tanks you mentioned have all directly, or indirectly helped draw up the game plans every Republican president since Ronald Reagan have used to foist a right wing agenda on the United States. So directly or not the individuals you note have to answer for the nightmare of the Trump presidency. Third. As you well know since the emergence of industrial capitalism in the 19th century it has been acknowledged that an activist state is crucial in terms of establishing and enforcing a set of rules and practices to ensure more rather than fewer have a chance to lead meaningful lives within a capitalistic system. Libertarians oppose such a state. The social Darwinism they endorse results in a form of cruelty
As a retired marketing professional, I have always hated labels and brands. While they are the currency of the realm in marketing, they diminish understanding of complex situations. I do not find value in terms that are so commonly misused (conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.) as to become meaningless. I see a similar pattern in the discussion of market "rules" and whether those rules provide a platform for stability in economics and politics. A "free market" is not a reality if the rules are tweaked to benefit a few or enforcement of the rules is nonexistent or unequal.
Globally, so much time, so many careers, so many resources have been applied to establishing "rules" that align interests to generate stability or profitability or power. But when autocrats, dictators, and bad actors gain enough power to defy all rules, the purpose of those rules becomes moot. Who enforces the rules? Who demands change when the few rig the system to personal benefit? Must we have wars or revolutions to defend rules that provide a foundation of stability? Or do we become subject to the corruption of the most powerful bullies on the planet? These are the questions we see in front of us every day.
You have no idea how much it warms my heart to see someone give libertarians a fair shake. We've never been the "we want fReEdOm so we can do drugs and buy sex!" crowd. We've been the "power can be abused, so how are you going to stop that and can you assure me that the upside benefits (which are real!) are worth the downside risk?"
Ah yes. Small-c conservatism (whatever that means?) and their rules of the game to supposedly raise all boats. Except it clearly has not worked out that way. The question isn't whether there will be rules - there will always be rules. The question is which rules. Conservatives across the board claim allegiance to the "free market" unfettered by government interference ... until they don't. They are more than willing to use rules to enhance the economic and political positions of their backers - but when it comes to the rest of us struggling just to pay rent, the rules that favor a more universal prosperity (e.g., labor unions, child care and the like) get tossed out the window and stomped on. I no longer have any faith whatsoever that conservatives (or Conservatives) are either willing to or capable of governing the whole country and its many peoples. The operative concept since at least Reagan (and probably longer) has been screw the least of us (contrary to Matthew 25:40). If America is prosperous, it's in spite of conservatism, not because of it. At this point, finding a conservative to chat with whom I can respect or like is a waste of my time, as respect for what they have wrought and at what cost is something I simply cannot muster. As an aside, I am a just a college educated normal person, not an economist, but I can't quite grasp how an economist can feign political neutrality when there is so much devastation around us that is being either ignored or buoyed by current conservative (Conservative) dogma. I also can't grasp how someone such as you can favorably consider a rightward turn. If you decide to become a conservative (Conservative?), it'll be mighty disappointing to this ordinary reader.
I'm not sure if I've used the term small-c conservative correctly. I meant "conservative" as in "to conserve." When we have rules that work, I think we ought to be careful about changing them. Don't throw away what ain't broke.
I can't quite comprehend how you can say, "it ain't broke." Everywhere I look these days, I see massive "broke." And I believe it's systemic "broke." Take, for example, appliances - say, water heaters. Back in my youth, in the 1960s and '70s, we had the same water heater for the 18 years I grew up in my house in Houston. While it sometimes needed repairs, that was only on rare occasions - and certainly, we never had to replace the thing b/c the cost of parts and labor sucked the air out of my parents' lungs. These days, it's planned obsolescence for everything, with "planned" being the operative concept. This may be a great business model for a company's executives and share holders, but it sucks for everyone else. Nothing works - in my view, deliberately. If anything, conservative "rules" haven't worked at all, except for the aforementioned corporate execs and shareholders. Granted - hot water heaters are a great invention, but only if they aren't made to break in about 7 years (what we were told by a plumber friend that today's average water heater life is). So I guess my real question is how you can say the system ain't broke for most of us - the ones for whom the current system sucks?
Except so many things are broken. So many Supreme Court justices appointed by the same president. Majority leaders of the Senate who refuse to abide by the rules for filling vacancies. A Speaker of the House who shuts down the session to avoid votes that are likely to go against the president's wishes. Politicians who pretend to be one thing and turn out to be the opposite (Susan Collins, John Fetterman, Maria Elvira Salazar). A politician (Rick Scott) who, as a businessman, defrauded Medicare and got away with it, and got elected to a federal seat where he can vote on Medicare. A federal official, Mark Meadows, who was registered to vote in three states simultaneously (vote early and often, eh Mark?). All sorts of political action committees running all sorts of secret schemes to funnel money to politicians. Politicians who care more about about getting re-elected than about representing their constituents or about upholding their oath to protect the Constitution. Voters who don't know who their representative or senator is and who get their news from Facebook instead of from a newspaper.
Love you, CindyO in Texas.
I feel anxious and dizzy looking at the picture of those men eating their lunch on a beam somewhere high above—a city, a body of water? Whatever it is, it made me queasy!
I appreciate your honesty and perspective. I recently shared one of your postings with my husband because I found it so helpful and illuminating. He read it and said, "In general I agree, but his perspective is very biased." :)
Perhaps most economists end up as anti-Trump because they, despite their biases, have a primary goal of helping the economy, balancing budgets, and generally functioning from a "good for the world or people" perspective. One could never accuse Donald Trump of this. I'll stop there, otherwise my pure bias will rear its head—though it is comforting to know my bias aligns so perfectly with economic science!
Dear Professor Wolfers. First of all, I must apologize for my exuberance in responding to your thoughts and articles. In my defense and to your credit, I find your approach thought provoking and relevant for the turbulent era that engulfs us, addressing not only economics but historical and sociological issues.
Your comment, "I’m more comfortable with data, and trying to understand the empirical reality of a specific market in the here and now" is similar to a comment made by a history professor of mine during undergraduate school. He remarked, while travelling in Europe and Western Asia, that he felt equally oppressed in Spain as he did in the then Soviet Union. He explained that his view of authoritarianism was not represented by a horizontal line but a sphere. The more leftist one became, the closer one became to a rightist way of thinking.
When it comes to the current administration, the terms left, right, liberal, conservative, progressive or reactionary can be thrown out the window. The term that might best describe our current climate is chaotic. Government oppression today with immigrant concentration camps and a national police state under ICE control. Unapproved tariffs and military action against foreign entities. Capitalism running amuck with tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, disintegration of the social safety net, and the reduction or elimination of needed health benefits for the unfortunate. Reduction or elimination of vehicle emission standards. Who can keep track of the list?
With the mid-term elections approaching there is a possibility that policy chaos can change. This is not an end all, but only the first step. It was considered that it would take 20 years to diminish the damage of the 2nd Bush administration. We received only eight years prior to Trump. We have a long struggle ahead.
Not "chaotic." The word you need is "fascist." Government willing to get into bed with corporations in an alliance against the people, as long as the corporations will kowtow to the dictator. Think Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, and to some extent Oliveira Salazar in Portugal.
Wrote my own piece on this here (https://davehebertecon.substack.com/p/thank-you-justin), including an invitation to coffee if Justin's ever up for it since we're not far from one another.
Good discussion, especially between CindyO, Justin Wolfers, and Judy. I'm a liberal Democrat. I agree with Paul Krugman's idea of why we should have an economy: the "ultimate goal of an economy isn't wealth, it's well-being." And I think he means the well-being of all the people.
In order to claim that he's a conservative, Justin Wolfers has staked out a very narrow definition of conservatism limited to those who value the rules of the game that have served us well for generations. By that definition, I'm a conservative, too.
CindyO wrote two well-justified polemics against President Trump and the Conservative Republican Party and I agree with her. Trump lied right from the start at his inauguration when he took the President’s oath of office falsely, with his fingers crossed behind his back. Republican Senators and Representatives had decided right from the beginning that they would never fulfill their oaths of office like normal members of an American political party. In effect, they set about forming a "fifth column" in our country ("...a secret group of people who work from the inside to undermine a larger group, nation, or organization, usually to help an outside enemy.”). They took the manifesto called Project 2025 as their guidebook and have no loyalty to the Constitution or the people they represent. Instead, they are rigidly loyal to Trump. The only response we can have to this is to resist and defeat them next month at the voting booth.
It was reassuring to hear you outline values inherent in your field. It is consistent with your "economics is life" mission. Your Platypals are with you.
I'm a scientist and one of the things I learned from my professors was that everyone has a bias. It may be political, historical, technical, or something else, but everyone has one. The best you can do, they taught me, was to be aware of your biases when you evaluate data or policy and admit them publicly when necessary.
Welcome to the conservative (small c) block, Justin — away from the far right and the far left.
Two things stand out in today’s piece. The first has to do with the think tanks you mentioned in which many of your colleagues work. While we are all guilty of having a point of view, and I share your belief that we are obligated to spend time walking around in someone else;s shoes, that doesn’t applies to Think Tanks. Think Tanks are by definition biased. They were organized and are paid for by groups or individuals committed to a particular ideology as a way to impose that ideology on the rest of us. The orientation of these organizations shapes the research they do, the conclusions drawn from that research, and ultimately the policies that are its results. Each of the Think Tanks you mentioned have all directly, or indirectly helped draw up the game plans every Republican president since Ronald Reagan have used to foist a right wing agenda on the United States. So directly or not the individuals you note have to answer for the nightmare of the Trump presidency. Third. As you well know since the emergence of industrial capitalism in the 19th century it has been acknowledged that an activist state is crucial in terms of establishing and enforcing a set of rules and practices to ensure more rather than fewer have a chance to lead meaningful lives within a capitalistic system. Libertarians oppose such a state. The social Darwinism they endorse results in a form of cruelty
As a retired marketing professional, I have always hated labels and brands. While they are the currency of the realm in marketing, they diminish understanding of complex situations. I do not find value in terms that are so commonly misused (conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.) as to become meaningless. I see a similar pattern in the discussion of market "rules" and whether those rules provide a platform for stability in economics and politics. A "free market" is not a reality if the rules are tweaked to benefit a few or enforcement of the rules is nonexistent or unequal.
Globally, so much time, so many careers, so many resources have been applied to establishing "rules" that align interests to generate stability or profitability or power. But when autocrats, dictators, and bad actors gain enough power to defy all rules, the purpose of those rules becomes moot. Who enforces the rules? Who demands change when the few rig the system to personal benefit? Must we have wars or revolutions to defend rules that provide a foundation of stability? Or do we become subject to the corruption of the most powerful bullies on the planet? These are the questions we see in front of us every day.
We also had a workforce with well being and jobs we were eager to do with fair pay
You have no idea how much it warms my heart to see someone give libertarians a fair shake. We've never been the "we want fReEdOm so we can do drugs and buy sex!" crowd. We've been the "power can be abused, so how are you going to stop that and can you assure me that the upside benefits (which are real!) are worth the downside risk?"