A "Misguided Attempt to Appear Unbiased"

Jeff Frankel reacts to Bryan Caplan's op-ed on the gas-tax holiday:

How Far the NYT had to go to Find an Economist to Support the Gas Tax Holiday, by Jeff Frankel: Economists frequently complain that even when 98% of the profession agrees on something (say a free-trade proposition), the media will go to lengths to dig up an economist from the 2% minority in order to balance one from the 98% majority, in its feverish and misguided attempt to appear unbiased and balanced on every issue, even issues that don’t really have two sides. The New York Times op-ed page has outdone itself today by publishing “The 18-cent Solution” by Bryan Caplan. The “callout” heading is “Found: an economist who backs the summer gas-tax holiday.” The impetus, of course, was the question posed to Hillary Clinton by a reporter: can you name a single economist who supports the idea of a summer gas tax holiday?

In this case, the NYT couldn’t find an economist who really takes the minority position on economic grounds, or even on reasonable political economy grounds. ...  Rather Caplan’s argument is a very convoluted political rationalization: (1) the high gas prices engender populist concerns that might lead to bad policies, (2) yes, a gas tax holiday is a bad policy, but (3) one can make a political argument for the gas tax holiday because it is not as bad as some of the other “populist nonsense: price controls, rationing, windfall profits taxes…” that we might get instead. This political argument is quite a stretch as it is, but he then goes on to make it truly absurd by supporting “a pairing of an excess profits tax with a gas tax holiday” on the grounds that it is not as bad as “an excess profits tax all by itself.” Apparently two bad policies is better than none! ...

Bryan Caplan is a perfectly competent economist, with a Ph.D. and a job and everything. ... Why would he spout the nonsense that is in this op-ed? The answer is very clear: it is the way to get into the New York Times. He gleefully admits as much on his blog today: “I’ve finally made the Gray Lady: Today’s New York Times features my op-ed inspired by Sunday’s post, I’ll Shill for Hillary. I hope critics don’t misrepresent me as an economic apostate; I’m not dissenting from the standard analysis… look on the bright side: I’m in the New York Times. Sweet!”

Bryan: A suggestion. You should now write a letter to the New York Times retracting your op-ed on the grounds that you should have known that readers would incorrectly infer that you were supporting the policy on economic grounds. [Arnold, can you help out here?] If you do this, the Club of Economists might let you back in. Plus, you will have gotten your name in the NYT a second time! Sweet!”

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

JF: "Why would he spout the nonsense that is in this op-ed?"

Why does any wing-nut spout economic and political nonsense?

Why does George Mason U deliberately seek out economists of a particular, and extreme bent?

Why do so many economists seem to think that they belong to a club with a peculiar doctrine?

Why, oh why, can't we have a better economics?

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

OT:

I just read this wonderful article. I am guilty as charged. sorry....! :-(

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050808E.shtml

Outright Barbarism vs. the Civil Society

By Sara Robinson
Campaign for America's Future

Tuesday 06 May 2008

My best regards,

Econolicious

[John V]

Maybe they couldn't find an economist to truly because there weren't any..or maybe the one they could find didn't his phone.

:)

But I think Frankel is a bit harsh here:

the NYT couldn’t find an economist who really takes the minority position on economic grounds, or even on reasonable political economy grounds. ... Rather Caplan’s argument is a very convoluted political rationalization

Having read his original blog "I'll shill for Hillary and commented here http://swordscrossed.org/node/2174#comment-86992. I thought is was clearly a somewhat reasonable political economy/public choice justification...albeit a bit facetious.

But hardly a "stretch" as Frankel says. In a way, he's making the same style argument that liberal economists do when they talk about tweaking trade legislation to keep the public at least warm about it so public sentiment doesn't sink further and endanger freer trade altogether.

What Caplan says is not nonsense. It's perfectly plausible political calculation commentary.

And then Frankel insults readers' intelligence when he says:

You should now write a letter to the New York Times retracting your op-ed on the grounds that you should have known that readers would incorrectly infer that you were supporting the policy on economic grounds.

How ironic...

[a]

"Economists frequently complain that even when 98% of the profession agrees on something (say a free-trade proposition), the media will go to lengths to dig up an economist from the 2% minority in order to balance one from the 98% majority."

Had the media really done this with free-trade?

[Jay]

"What Caplan says is not nonsense. It's perfectly plausible political calculation commentary."

John: You have to understand that most liberals (and conservatives) don't believe we live in a dynamic world where the choices that we make impact other choices down the road. Instead they think they can tweak one variable to get a desired outcome for a second variable without changing any other variables(particularly those variables that would undue our desired changes to the dependent variable we are targeting to change). I read both articles and realized the entire time he was making a political game theory argument.

[General Specific]

Jay said: "You have to understand that most liberals (and conservatives) don't believe we live in a dynamic world where the choices that we make impact other choices down the road."

I declare the above statement unfounded and biased. There's that old saying: you can't get something for nothing. It's an old saying because most people believe it--liberals and conservatives.

Jay said: "realized the entire time he was making a political game theory argument."

Saying that it's a political game theory argument doesn't make it a good argument, which you've not addressed.

First, Caplan's idea that the additional 18 cents the industry will eventually realize will spur exploration and development: basically nonsense. As usual, Caplan makes an argument based on the "well, marginally they could use that money for exploration and development" so he's theoretically correct but so far off in the weeds it's clear he's just making the argument to fill up space. It's called hand waving.

And the idea that the 18 cent drop in gas price, when it eventually disappears from the consumers pocket because of supply and demand (which he admits), will somehow appease voters ignores the strong possibility that voters will be ticked off when it disappears and then demand blood from the oil companies.

Caplan's argument is primarily an answer to the following question: "How can I get attention?" And he answered it well.

[reason]

General Specific...
That is a very good answer, because that is precisely what Caplan is about. His entire theme seems to be "look I'm cleverer than you are, na, na, di, na, na". Actually worrying about what we could do to make life better for the majority of people is not something that really concerns him.

[richard]

Like economics, medicine in often an applied discipline that uses multiple techniques to figure out "better" and "poorer" treatments based on outcome; like economics, it can be intensely political and pulled this-way-and-that by the academic or pecuniary interests of its members. Be that as it may, it is possible to get to get the AMA and publications such as JAMA to push for clear-cut policy reccomendations. Why is that?

[Blissex]

«Why, oh why, can't we have a better economics?»

Who is willing to pay for it? Endowed chair, think tank jobs, consultancy contracts, expert witness fees?

All these go to the career-oriented economist eager to support the right sort of Economics.