Sanders Pushes Harris to Pursue Agenda That 'Speaks to the Needs of the Working Class'.
Sanders Pushes Harris to Pursue Agenda That 'Speaks to the Needs of the Working Class'.
Sen. Bernie Sanders held off on formally endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for the Democratic nomination, urging her to put forth an agenda that prioritizes the needs of the nation's working class.
You're viewing a single thread.
If Harris becomes president, the number one thing I want from her is to listen to the experts. I want her to listen to climate experts, public health experts, economic experts, etc. I think Democrats are generally better than Republicans at listening to and following the advice of experts, so I think she will meet this requirement.
However, there can be peril in this, as the experts don't always agree on everything and aren't always objective. For instance, one of the preeminent economists of the mid to late 20th century was Milton Friedman, who argued that just about everything the government did was bad. His opinions about deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, etc, became gospel, and then policy. We are living with the effects of that gospel and those policies today.
I am certain that Friedman believed his ideology would result in the best outcomes for the largest number of people. I don't for a minute believe he thought his policies would hurt people or make them worse off. But while economists (or any experts, really) like Friedman may have had the best of intentions, what they lacked was a willingness to be wrong. This is the true weakness of ideologues, and why they can make for poor scientists.
We don't only need leaders who listen to experts, we need experts who can see beyond their own ideological biases, and rely on evidence and data instead of belief. If we can achieve this, I think many things will improve in the United States.
I refuse to believe economists have the best of intentions in mind when they write in absolutes lol. Too many refuse to factor human costs and irrationality into their calculations, Friedman being one of main examples.
I’m sure there are economists that do, but the few I’ve spoken to talk about people abstractly and as expendables.
Yeah it's batshit that an economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don't act 100% rationally so that's why economic models were failing to predict reality.
Like, I'm sure it wasn't obvious and I'm not trying to sound like I'm smarter than economists, but holy fuck duh
My economics teacher would publicly fellate Alan Greenspan in class. Cue the subprime mortgage crisis and Mr Greenspan is out there going "I didn't account for bankers being stupid and greedy."
Hahaha that's fantastic! Do you remember who it was? I'd love to read about this....
duckduckgo'd: 'economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don’t act 100% rationally so that’s why economic models were failing' results was this:(theconversation(dot)com link), so I guess Richard Thaler is who you're looking for.
It's even worse than that it's not even just the irrationally that's unaccounted for. It's also that people rationally optimize for variables that are disregarded. Neoclassical economics takes obviously falsifiable assumptions as axioms. It's brutally stupid shit. No amount of numbers attached to it would make it work if those axioms are wrong. Yet it's been used to enact major economic policy all over the world. Including "shock therapy" that got applied to many countries around the world, such as my country of origin where that led to dramatic drop in GDP, standard of living, life expectancy, more than a decade of poverty and a 20% population exodus. People like to badmouth Psychology as a shit science, boy, Psychologists check their results a lot more than these folks.
It's like people are the ones doing the things that create an economy so economists should be integrating the study of human psychology into economic theory.
Which, to the credit of the discipline seems to be happening finally (at least more than it was in the past).
Oh yes. But more generally there's a significant need for empiricism. Not just on the psychology of the economic individual. For example the fact that MMT's empirical observations of reality aren't mainstream yet is staggering. If empiricism was a mainstay or economics, these observations would have been tested and accepted if not falsified in the 90s or 2000s. Yet you have a country like the UK devastated by austerity following the great recession because that didn't happen.
I refuse to believe economists have the best of intentions in mind when they write in absolutes
The same can be said for most professions when they think in terms of absolutes.
The world isn't binary, and treating it in those terms almost always creates worse outcomes.
Joseph Stiglitz
This kind of technocratic approach can sound great and it’s always good to have policy and positions formed by those most knowledgeable in the relevant field. The problem is that the “experts” that will likely have her ear will be the ones that are vetted and approved by the power elite, the wealthiest in this country who will largely recommend what is best to protect their privilege, wealth and position.
Very well said. Thank you for raising the flaws of technocracy so much better than I could have, though I felt the need to!
When I learned about him I was surprised that a big part of Friedman's ideology was the Negative Income Tax. A form of Universal Basic Income. That would have made a big difference if that was implemented also.
I want her to listen to climate experts
Yep!
public health experts
Yep!
economic experts
You lost me.
Economics is just political economy somehow supposedly divorced from politics.
The economics Nobel prize is not even a “real” Nobel prize. No kidding, look it up.
The economics Nobel prize is not even a “real” Nobel prize. No kidding, look it up.
I know. Believe me, I have had my issues with the field of economics. But, who else should our elected officials seek guidance from on economic issues? The only alternative seems to be choosing some heterodox economic ideology and forming policies based on those unproven theories. Do we know if those theories, when put into practice, will make people's lives better or worse? Is it ethical to make the American people guinea pigs in an experiment to find out? I don't think so.