I have a doctor I really like, partly because he is interested in many things and likes to talk about them and partly because most of that talk is insightful, thought-provoking and occasionally brilliant.
In one of our less high-flung conversations, he was recently complaining to me that state regulations required him to have a gynecological table equipped with a speculum warmer (cost: $10,000) in each of his examining rooms, although there is no chance he’ll ever use one. He focused at first on the space they take up, but then segued to the fact that with ten examining rooms, his practice had had to shell out $100,000 for these things.
But then he quickly corrected himself: “Of course I realize there’s really no harm done because somebody is getting that money, but still…..”.
One sees this constantly. Smart, thoughtful, well-informed and insightful people can turn into blithering idiots when they talk about economics. But that’s part of a much more general phenomenon: Smart, thoughtful, well-informed and insightful people can turn into blithering idiots when they talk about pretty much anything outside their narrow specialties. (I wouldn’t be surprised if my doctor has regaled more than one dinner table with some of my thoughts about medicine.) That’s part of why we need specialization. If we had no specialties, we’d all be blithering idiots about everything.
In this case I went the route of gentle correction: “Well, yes, but instead of getting paid to build gynecological tables that nobody will ever use, those same people could have been paid to build something useful…”. His facial expression suggested that I’d given him a new and valuable insight (or maybe that he was trying to make me think that I had).
We should call out idiocy when we see it. We should also remember that we are all idiots in our own way.
Amen. I’ll take a step further. Journalists generally acknowledge their ignorance about specialties, such as medicine, electrical engineering, art, etc., to the extent that they defer to specialists when writing and reporting. But when it comes to economics it seems all bets are off. It seems to me that very few acknowledge that economics is a science. How often must we endure the phrase “price gouging” for example. I never encountered it in my price theory classes. It is not a term that is useful to economic inquiry.
I’ve long been amazed that it is so common to have folks opine on economics with no background knowledge when these same people would never announce opinions in, say, oncology or particle physics. Perhaps because economics is so closely tied to politics and it seems nearly universal that nearly everyone has an opinion on nearly every political topic?
In a previous comment, Jb claims economics is a science. I find this quite a stretch, given the lack of predictive ability of economic theories, though I find these theories to be illuminating and insightful.
I think it is fairly natural for people without training to spout a bit of economics not as much as its connections to politics (although that is an immediate cause) but because of its connections to life. When it comes to physics you have the OCCASIONAL person who is going to insist that the earth is flat, but very few are going to be motivated to argue against gravity…there just isn’t that much that can be done!
But when it comes to economics, almost everybody spends some time buying things, and almost as many sell things, even if it is only their labor. It is just going to seem a lot more plausible to nonprofessional economists that you can legislate some of this away, and hope springs eternal that some of the legislation would actually help somebody.
But I supposed King Knut maintained (satirically?) that he could control the tide, and the European Union maintains that there is a right to be forgotten, so I guess it is not just economics that so stubbornly resists law.
Bastiat rides again!
Not me, though. I’m perfect. I have a comparative advantage on everything.
During my time in Alaska in the 80s, there were a couple occasions when declines in state revenues from oil required some budget cuts for state programs, including the university. On one of those occasions, some suggested that, in light of the university’s mission, high cost, low enrollment programs at university learning centers in small remote villages were good candidates for retrenchment. The university president pushed back on this idea arguing that these small towns counted on university spending as an important part of their economic base, and that cuts should be sought elsewhere. I don’t remember the president’s academic field, but I hope it wasn’t economics.
I don’t know why this made me think of the Gell-Mann effect.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
Ironically I don’t even know if the “Gell-Mann effect” is even a real thing. The cycle continues.
This is off-topic but I just wanna say – I miss the ol’ Steve Landsberg!
There is so much happening since the election. I read, I try to understand but most everything I read is full of emotion, of bias and political rhetoric. What is truth?
And this is where I miss Steve and his pragmatism. He thinks, he says what he thinks and then, he explains why and how he thinks what he thinks. And … he gets us thinking.
Speak to us oh wise one!
I second Joe Henry’s opinion. Really miss the daily blogs. If not that…START A PODCAST ALREADY!
I can’t quite make this claim–but here’s my version.
Someone remarks “Everyone’s different.”
I then correct them: “That makes no sense. You can’t ‘be different.’ You can only be different than something else–such as, be different than me. But, of course, I am NOT different than me; I am the same. So let’s revise your remark to say, ‘Everyone’s different than nobody.really. But nobody.really is NOT different; he’s the same.'”
So the next time you hear someone saying “Everyone’s different,” feel free to correct them, and tell them that you corresponded with someone who wasn’t.
I can’t fault anyone for taking time away from moderating a blog discussion. I surmise that it can be a big time suck; in particular, the process of weeding out BS comments can be exhausting.
Moreover, over the years I’ve grown too busy to participate like I once did. So again, I can’t fault anyone else who finds themsevles in similar cirumstances. Many of my favorite blogs have been discontinued or fallen into a slower pace. (Anyone remember “Distributed Republic”?)
But yeah, I miss the ol’ days, too. Who doesn’t miss a free lunch–especially a free gourmet lunch?
Lest we have been remiss: Thank you, Dr. Landsberg. Whatever satisfactions your professional life affords you, I hope this blog counts as one of them.
“Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.”
– A. Einstein
It’s the “once a jeenyus, always a jeenyus” myth. Someone accomplished in one field, believes in his own infallibility, then jumps to another field, expecting to magically solve the outstanding problems, through the sheer superiority of his brain. Or spouts vacuous homilies.
The press propagates this myth, and breathlessly report his every utterance as the Sermon on the Mount. It’s an irremediable mental illness –