**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

This needs to be added:

nor do you have to be liked by those touting the invisible hand approach.

There is no "invisible hand" approach. The "invisible hand" is a description of what happens because of the laws of supply and demand. It's not something that economists take issue with. In fact, they all (100% of them) consider the "invisible hand" an accurate description, albeit an unnecessarily metaphorical one. The only people who take issue with the nomenclature are among those who are not economists, don't have the education, don't teach, don't research, etc.

An "invisible hand" approach in economics is like a "falling" approach (to gravity) in physics. They're both just simplistic descriptions of fundamental laws.

[JKDS]

Of course there isn't, but there are guidelines. He's not a researcher or instructor of economics, and his education on economics is significantly below those who typically are.

How do you know hes not a researcher? I'd bet he is. And while hes not an instructor, theres the saying "those who cant do, teach". Reich is a doer.

Why so biased? So when an economist (who has been teaching for decades and has a well-regarded textbook to his name) points out somebody else doing so poorly that they would flunk elementary economics, you just hand wave it away?

Im not biased. You linked an article from someone who is libertarian (surprise) attacking someone who isnt. Reich has books to his name too, and I'd say working for the White House beats being a professor any day of the week. So yes, I "hand wave away" a paid for opinion by someone who clearly disagrees with the man. You might as well have Bush saying Obama isnt a POTUS, because he disagrees with him on fundamental issues.

He has tons of experience in public policy. This is not economics.

Public policy that concerns the economy. Being in politics doesnt disqualify him either, hes allowed to be both.

By symmetry, this means he has one third of a master's degree in economics. That's a big difference.

No. It doesnt mean he has one third of a masters degree. How many units did he take to get his master's wuf? How can you possibly claim hes got 1/3 of a masters degree without an understanding of how many actual economics courses he took while getting that degree? According to Oxford's website, the degree is essentially a double masters. The program is also well acclaimed. So you're making a huge assumption that his formal education is crap because he, potentially, worked far harder than anyone else who got a masters in merely economics.

The books he writes and speeches he gives are on public policy and are for popular consumption. He doesn't write academic economics.

Fair point, still doesnt disqualify him though. Lawyers can be lawyers without entering a courtroom or authoring an article or textbook.

You're seeing what you want to see. Economists do not consider Reich an economist. I'm not even sure if Reich has even called himself an economist.

If you say so. http://www.famouseconomists.net/robert-reich. Idk what kinda site this is, but im clearly not alone here.

There is no "invisible hand" approach. The "invisible hand" is a description of what happens because of the laws of supply and demand. It's not something that economists take issue with. In fact, they all (100% of them) consider the "invisible hand" an accurate description, albeit an unnecessarily metaphorical one. The only people who take issue with the nomenclature are among those who are not economists, don't have the education, don't teach, don't research, etc.
.

Sorry for being glib. I substituted it for a free market approach. I took econ101 as well, and am well aware of the concept. But the free market approach has several criticisms, and clearly Reich doesnt support it. That doesnt disqualify him.

[wufwugy]

How do you know hes not a researcher? I'd bet he is. And while hes not an instructor, theres the saying "those who cant do, teach". Reich is a doer.

It's a meaningless quote.

I don't know-know that he's not a researcher, but I haven't seen any economics research accredited to him. It would be strange for him to have any since the vast majority of economics researchers have different credentials and engage in different work than him. There could be some small stuff from his past or something.

Im not biased. You linked an article from someone who is libertarian (surprise) attacking someone who isnt.

I had never even heard of the guy until I saw that article. His libertarianism has nothing to do with his attacks on Reich.

Reich has books to his name too

Not academic economics.

and I'd say working for the White House beats being a professor any day of the week.

If you are an economics professor, you are by definition an economist. Working for the WH has no bearing on whether or not you are an economist, even if your title at the WH is "Economistest Economist Who Ever Economisted".

So yes, I "hand wave away" a paid for opinion by someone who clearly disagrees with the man. You might as well have Bush saying Obama isnt a POTUS, because he disagrees with him on fundamental issues.

I see where the confusion is. You think that the author of the article says Reich isn't an economist because he disagrees with him. Well, the author explicitly says that is not the case. Reich is not an economist because he is technically not an economist. This has nothing to do with the words he says.

Public policy that concerns the economy. Being in politics doesnt disqualify him either, hes allowed to be both.

Nor does it qualify him.

I said earlier that it's okay to say that you don't need a doctorate in economics to be an economist, but I'm going to pull back on that. While there are atypical circumstances that involve masters level researchers, for the most part you do have to have a doctorate in economics for the economics profession to consider you an economist.

No. It doesnt mean he has one third of a masters degree. How many units did he take to get his master's wuf? How can you possibly claim hes got 1/3 of a masters degree without an understanding of how many actual economics courses he took while getting that degree?

I never said 1/3rd of a masters degree. I said 1/3rd of a masters degree in economics.

According to Oxford's website, the degree is essentially a double masters. The program is also well acclaimed. So you're making a huge assumption that his formal education is crap because he, potentially, worked far harder than anyone else who got a masters in merely economics.

So 2/3rds of a masters in economics then. Everything at Oxford is highly acclaimed. I never assumed his education was crap; instead his education could have been the single best education any person has ever had, yet it doesn't make him an economist.

Fair point, still doesnt disqualify him though. Lawyers can be lawyers without entering a courtroom or authoring an article or textbook.

Are you arguing for my side now? Your point here is that lawyers are lawyers due to credential (or perhaps expertise), not activity. All this time you have been arguing that Reich is an economist due to activity, not credential.

Edit: I see that you are calling his Labor Secretary work as credential. It's kinda sorta not. It's probably a great gig for an economist, but you don't have to be an economist to have it and having it doesn't make you an economist. It's like how the Secretary of Energy is usually a physicist, but being the SoE doesn't make you a physicist.

If you say so. http://www.famouseconomists.net/robert-reich. Idk what kinda site this is, but im clearly not alone here.

#1 on the list: Adam Smith. Also not an economist.

Many laypeople think Reich is an economist (and Smith too), but economists do not. I don't know exactly what they consider qualifies the label "economist", but it mostly has to do with having a doctorate in economics. It can be other stuff though, like if somebody with Reich's level of education on economics wrote a popular academic textbook on economics, he would probably be considered an economist then. Or if he was conducting academic research in economics.

Sorry for being glib. I substituted it for a free market approach. I took econ101 as well, and am well aware of the concept. But the free market approach has several criticisms, and clearly Reich doesnt support it. That doesnt disqualify him.

It most certainly doesn't. I (and the economist who wrote the article) never said it did.


To note: Reich is kinda never mentioned in the econoblogosphere. He doesn't engage at the level of economists and he's thought of as a political pundit and policy practitioner (and lawyer) instead. 97.82% (I made that up, but it's close) of those in the econoblogosphere are phd economists. The others are people like Matthew Yglesias, who are not economists, but sometimes write things stimulating to current economic thought among economists.