Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Alberta economic council has no Alberta economists

by Paul Wells on Friday, July 3, 2009 4:25pm - 100 Comments

Via Stephen Gordon, a UofA economist is pretty steamed about a new “Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy,” whose members are listed here. The group — David Emerson, Anne McLellan, Jennifer Welsh — seems to be drawn largely from that exotic species, Canadians Who Sit On Advisory Councils. A council that meets every six months to share vague goodwill and free-floating thoughtfulness probably won’t be much help to anyone, but they seem like nice people and I wish them pleasant deliberations.

Tags: Alberta, Ed Stelmach

More by Paul Wells

Anon

It's surprising that Mintz is not in Stelmach's Council. You'd think he'd be an automatic.

Anne McLellan qualifies as an Alberta economist, does she not? Wasn't she a Deputy PM in the PM Cabinet, and therefore, steeped in all things economic?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

So it works by osmosis? If I have an office next to a juggler I learn to juggle?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Besides which, Martin's degrees are in history, philosophy and law. Anon is demonstrating Aidan Hollis' point: economics is so easy that if you serve as the DPM to a short-lived catastrophe-wrecked government led by a philosophy grad, you turn into an economist.

Anon

Martin ran a very successful company (aside: I think there's a story there on how he could). He was also a very successful Finance Minister. Something happened when he became PM — maybe he just didn't know what to do, or maybe he just wanted to do too many things, who knows?

The point is that you don't need an economics degree to understand the implications of the capital markets on public policy.

In fact, given the prediction track record of the self-proclaimed economist we now have in charge, I'd think economists are probably the last to be invited to serve on these councils.

Still, Stelmach, to his credit, has two that are quite respected — Dodge and Emerson. I'm sure he'll toss in one from the Calgary school soon.

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Dear Anon: Read this book:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/FILTHY-LUCRE-…

Economists know things. Things you don't.

Anon

You're right. But I have the humility to know that there are things I don't know. The question is: do you?

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Clearly, that's not the case. You've dismissed economics without knowing -or taking the trouble to learn – what it has to say.

I'd call that a level of arrogance far beyond whatever accusations you might throw at economists.
Anon

Gee, Stephen, you do seem steamed, and I can see why "you" are not in Stelmach's Council.

Your arrogance is obviously far greater than mine, because you pretend to know what I may or may not know. For all you know, I could be a trained economist — mercifully, I'm not.

Finally, lighten up, will you?

I normally pick fights on this board only with Paul Wells, not with other posters. If you don't believe me, ask him.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Stephen Gordon doesn't need to lighten up. Anon, you need to smarten up. Final warning.
Anon

Final warning.

For what?
Anon

Lèse majesté.

Check yourself!

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

So do philosophy profs.

Economists and philosophers also have opinions.

Well-informed or otherwise, they are just that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

But better-informed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

No doubt in the case of philosophy profs.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

No doubt you have fond memories of the philosophy courses taught in the late sixties / early seventies. ;-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

The secret to Life in the rambling verbiage of L'il Bobby Zimmerman.

Well, not so secret … and some people's Lives. I guess.

RayK

I'm certainly not dismissive of economics or economists, but it seems contradictory to criticize Anon's point that an economic advisory board needn't be made up of economists when–in the next breath–you suggest he improve his knowledge of economics by reading a book by a philosophy professor!?

http://www.quillandquire.com/reviews/review.cfm?r…

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

My point. You made it better.
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Because the author has read and understands what economists have to say. And he's managed to explain it in layman's terms.
Anon

That's what smart people can do. Now why is that economists rarely can?
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

That's a problem. Part of the answer is that when it comes to economics, English is a second language; we think in terms of mathematical models and then try to translate to the vernacular. And since the best translations are made into the translator's mother tongue, that's hard for us.

I think the reason that Joseph Heath has done so well is that he never learned the math, so his translation to English is correspondingly better.
Anon

Your tongue-and-cheek claim that economists are post- or pre-verbal comes with not a small degree of irony.
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

*shrug*

My fault for trying to engage.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

No fault in trying to engage, but were you successful? If not, why not?
Anon

I'm sorry, but a good command of human language is fundamental to what most of us consider smart.

As to your other point: economics is not mathematics. Modelling the real world with the "language" of mathematics is fundamental to science, but most real sciences are obligated to test models empirically before presenting them to powerful agents who determine policy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

You clearly have no idea what economists do. Because that is exactly how we work.
Anon

No, you don't.. At best, you set up limited experiments in outrageously artificial circumstances.

Economists are more than capable of examining data from past experience (as much as economic data can ever be assumed to be credible) and drawing conclusions, but the entire value of economics as a science (and as sold to the powerful) is based on its predictive ability.

It's quite obvious from recent events that is has none. It's determinism being sold as empiricism.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

*shrug*

eta: How can you be so confident that you know what economists do? Have you read *anything* written by a real economist? Because here I am, a professional economist, familiar with how we work, telling you how we work, and you are contradicting me for no better reason than because contradicting economists is what makes you feel good.

Seriously. Get a clue.
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Well played!
Anon

Not as well-played at this:

"…you really should do some reading, and some thinking. It may not be as emotionally satisfying as making up shit about what I think, but it might remove you from my list of “People who are too stupid to be taken seriously, but insist on making their views made know to the general public”.

Anyway, Oh Petulant One: Why don't you do something useful and tackle Matt Taibbi's latest excoriation of Goldman-Sachs? I'm sure *he* doesn't understand economics either.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

About a month ago I was killing a few moments in the local Chapters outlet and that book caught my eye. I skimmed a chapter and was intrigued. Based on your recommendation and my previous perusal, I'll head back into town later today and pick it up.

Thanks
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

For the 'benefit' of anyone trolling stale threads…..a free book review.

It's a good book, a worthwhile read, especially if you are truly interested in public policy issues. You probably won't agree with everything that is presented, but the book does dispute common claims of both the 'left' and the 'right' so everyone should be able to find at least a few 'I told you so' ideas to get them started.

After that, given some ruminating time, you might find yourself thinking "Well, I suppose he might have a point about that….".

Mulletaur

From ECalgary :

"The message I hear from our government is this: "If you're so smart, why are you at a university in Alberta?" "

Wow, that's a parochial attitude from an academic. I though knowledge was supposed to be universal ? Perhaps Alberta economists are in another dimension of understanding that the rest of the world (not to mention the rest of Canada) just doesn't get. Or perhaps this is a kind of academic protectionism : "protect the jobs of our fellow Albertan economists on advisory councils, brother and sisters" they shouted from the barricades. Huh.

Anyway, the whole purpose of an 'advisory council' is either to provide a bright, shiny cover for decisions which have already been made, or play for time while the government makes up its mind. I thought we had already been through this once before with that silly economic advisory panel 'Diamond Jim' named ? *ducks*

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

You will no doubt have the same reaction when Aidan isn't asked his opinion on UK stem cell policy.

Mulletaur

Why exactly am I supposed to give a flying flock about Aidan's opinion regarding UK stem cell policy, and what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread ?

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

For the same reason Albertans are supposed to care about the opinions of Oxford immunologists regarding Alberta's economic policy.

Sadly, it's relevant because that's just what Albertans are being asked to do.

Mulletaur

Stephen, I refer you to my earlier statement :

"Anyway, the whole purpose of an 'advisory council' is either to provide a bright, shiny cover for decisions which have already been made, or play for time while the government makes up its mind."

In other words, Stelmach could have picked a peck of picked peppers, or a barrel of smoking monkeys. What difference would it make ?

http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

"In fact, given the prediction track record of the self-proclaimed economist we now have in charge, I'd think economists are probably the last to be invited to serve on these councils."

Wait… so if I call myself a basketball player, but I actually suck at basketball, then by extension everyone who plays basketball is useless?

Anon

Touche.

But if you're a basketball player for the Clippers, and you (naturally) suck, then you (or anybody from your team) should not expect to be invited if the owners decide to form an advisory council on how to improve the team.

Better?

http://economics.about.com Mike Moffatt

"Better? "

Not really, no.

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Oh, and Paul: Aidan is at the U of Calgary.
Norman Spector

David Emerson grew up in Grande Prairie, played hockey on the U of A hockey team, was the CEO of Canadian Western Bank and has a Ph.D. in economics. Other than that, I guess you could say he's not qualified to sit on a council appointed by the premier of Alberta.

Anon

Wait a second.

Emerson sounds like the logical successor to Harper, should he ever decide to pull-a-Palin.
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

That makes two. Out of twelve. Happily, there's also "[t]wo Oxford professors, one an expert in the ethics of post-conflict reconstruction, and another an immunologist".

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

So what, really?

They make up 17% of the committee as is. Plus one of the other dudes is the Chairman of Alberta Economic Development Authority and another dude considered "one of the world's leading authorities on the economic and political impacts of life sciences", so presumably they have some attachment to the discipline not withstanding neither is a formally trained econo with a phd in econ.

(not to mention that the council is no doubt supported by the best economists within the Alberta Government).

After those dudes, you are left with a geologist, a private-sector-type, a former snr politico, a medical dude (genetics/immunology), a biotech/enviro dude, another private sector with some experience around policy issues, a dude working on water/enviro issues who also holds a phd in psych and was an MLA, and an international relations expert.

What a terrible idea to have that kind of diversity around the table when your mandate is:

"The council will help to give an external, big-picture perspective on what Alberta needs to do to secure the province's long-term prosperity. The council will provide guidance on actions the Alberta government can take to best position the province for the future."

, which is presummabley
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

So what, really?

They make up 17% of the committee as is. Plus one of the other dudes is the Chairman of Alberta Economic Development Authority and another dude considered "one of the world's leading authorities on the economic and political impacts of life sciences", so presumably they have some attachment to the discipline not withstanding neither is a formally trained econo with a phd in econ.

(not to mention that the council is no doubt supported by the best economists within the Alberta Government).

After those dudes, you are left with a geologist, a private-sector-type, a former snr politico, a medical dude (genetics/immunology), a biotech/enviro dude, another private sector with some experience around policy issues, a dude working on water/enviro issues who also holds a phd in psych and was an MLA, and an international relations expert.

What a terrible idea to have that kind of diversity around the table when your mandate is:

"The council will help to give an external, big-picture perspective on what Alberta needs to do to secure the province's long-term prosperity. The council will provide guidance on actions the Alberta government can take to best position the province for the future."

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Put another way, who hear thinks that medicine science and biotech, earth sciences, the environment and water issues, politics and policy, business, international relations, big A oil, and the expertise on the financial and political impacts of health should not be at the table when considering the "big-picture" of Alberta's "long-term prosperity", as well as "quality of life".

And pls, rank order those issues you are taking those issues off the table, from least important to almost made the cut.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Put another way, who hear thinks that medicine science and biotech, earth sciences, the environment and water issues, politics and policy, business, international relations, big A oil, and the expertise on the financial and political impacts of health should not be at the table when considering the "big-picture" of Alberta's "long-term prosperity", as well as "quality of life".

And pls, rank order those issues you are taking those issues off the table, from least important to almost made the cut of being important enough to have a seat at the table.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Put another way, who here thinks that medical science and biotech, earth sciences, the environment and water issues, politics and policy, business, international relations, big A oil, and the expertise on the financial and political impacts of health and health care should not be at the table when considering the "big-picture" of Alberta's "long-term prosperity", as well as "quality of life".

And pls, rank order those issues you are taking off the table, from least important to almost made the cut of being important enough to have a seat at the table.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

also Stephen, to the degree that you are willing to repost it verbatim, it helps to actually distinguish a current recent project (e.g., the ethics of post-conflict reconstruction) and expertise (e.g., "Professor Welsh is Professor in International Relations at the University of Oxford"; "Jennifer has taught international relations at the University of Toronto, McGill University, and the Central European University (Prague)"; "She is the author, co-author, and editor of several books and articles on international relations"; "a member of the Editorial Board of the BISA Series in International Relations at Cambridge University Press"; "acts as a frequent commentator in Canadian media on foreign policy and international relations").

you know better, or should.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

also Stephen, to the degree that you are willing to repost it verbatim, it helps to actually distinguish a current research project (e.g., the ethics of post-conflict reconstruction) from expertise (e.g., "Professor Welsh is Professor in International Relations at the University of Oxford"; "Jennifer has taught international relations at the University of Toronto, McGill University, and the Central European University (Prague)"; "She is the author, co-author, and editor of several books and articles on international relations"; "a member of the Editorial Board of the BISA Series in International Relations at Cambridge University Press"; "acts as a frequent commentator in Canadian media on foreign policy and international relations").

as faculty, you know better, or should.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Are they wearing ribbons? No panel, no council, no committee cuts it without a coloured ribbon.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

I figure that given Aberta's reputation as the wild west, a simple ribbon simply will not do Jack. I match your coloured ribbon and raise you a sheriff star. Otherwise, as Dot suggests this has to be simply window-dressing, no?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Nice. As long as they're blue, then, we're cool.

Canuckistanian

Tory blue? ;-)

–dB

Jennifer Welsh, eh? Hopefully Stelmach can capture the coherence and pragmatism of Paul Martin's foreign policy and apply it to Alberta's economy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

If she adheres at all to views of the namesake of the foundation of which she's a board member ( Walter Gordon ), then she and Emerson the Continentalist should have some interesting conversations.

But then I think they should turn it all over to these folks anyway …..

http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/

Wouldn't that be fun.

Aidan Hollis

My original post is a lament about (a) the public perception of economics, which is pretty negative; and (b) the decision by the government to go seeking foreign expertise. As an academic in Alberta, it is pretty disappointing that not one of my colleagues, even in immunology or ethics, was thought worthy by the government for one of these positions; and as an economist, it is disappointing that the government decided that only academics in other disciplines would have anything useful to say.

It is economists who have traditionally driven the intellectual agenda on issues such as whether governments can effectively direct industrial policy to engender industrial diversification. It is not that they are smarter than everyone else. But they have been thinking about this kind of question professionally and that does mean something. If I try to give advice on immunology research I might find myself a little way down the learning curve. So, while there is nothing wrong with having diversity and views from abroad and a fresh perspective from outside the field, I am wondering why there are so few economists (professional or previously professional) on this panel.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

In Canada – I think especially in Canada – you're not an economist unless you work for a bank or an
industry association.
Mulletaur

Are economists who are currently tenured in Alberta universities particularly well placed to make economic judgments and give economic advice ? Perhaps we should insist that the IMF and the World Bank only hire economists tenured at Alberta universities. Following that logic, the federal government should insist that all Canadian banks hire only economists who are tenured at Alberta universities.

"It is economists who have traditionally driven the intellectual agenda …"

No, they have not. Political economists have. Not neoclassical economists. You need to disinsert your cranium from your nether regions.

Canuckistanian

"effectively" is a pretty important word in that quote. it allows neoclassical/neoliberal economists to assert that gov'ts *cannot* "effectively" direct industrial policy to engender…

of course that is bunk (as political economists have been happy to note).

Anon

What I'd like to know — and what nobody seems to have explained — is why?

Why would Stelmach go out of his way not to include a single tenured economics professor (I think I've read the bios of all the panelists carefully) from his hometown University?

Is there a back story in there somewhere, because as I said before, J Mintz would seem to be an automatic on anybody's list? Have they been criticizing his government a lot — maybe he got upset and just wanted to ban them from his panels :-)

http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com/ Olaf

Why would Stelmach go out of his way not to include a single tenured economics professor (I think I've read the bios of all the panelists carefully) from his hometown University?

The University of Lamont?

http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com Candace

Stelmach lives in Andrew, not Lamont ;-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Although Andrew is in Lamont County.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

This might be difficult or awkward but, assuming that you (or Stephen Gordon or both) were on the panel, can you give us a hint about the single best idea that you would be putting forward? If not the best idea, how about an example of the type of input that you would be providing, especially the input that you are concerned will be lacking.

It would be help me better understand the situation.

Anon

Stephen Gordon is at the University of Laval — at least I think that's him, the photos seem to match. So, I don't think he — SGordon — had or has any hope of being appointed to any Stelmachian panel.

It sure warms the cockles of my heart, though, to know that a Quebec professor would spend so much of his (presumably spare) time defending the honour of his Alberta colleagues.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Well there you go, I've already learned something today.

Hopefully a few more nuggets of knowledge will pop up later on.

Dot

Pure window dressing by the Stelmach gov't.

Norman should know better. PW probably does, but I'm not sure

Dot

Check out the Alberta comments to Adam Radwanski's editorial Monday on this same subject – much along the lines of my initial reaction:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/ed…

finn

“Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy”–just visiting.
Dot

Lorne Taylor, as some may recall, was Ralph Klein's "Environment" Minister who lead the anti-Kyoto, pro oil sands effort on behalf of the oilpatch/Klein Gov't (interchangeable terms).

I believe it was through his efforts (he had some involvement) that the current leader of the Alberta Liberals, David Swann, was fired when he was medical officer of health, for the Palliser Health Region for indicating that reducing emissions would be good for people's health (he wasn't a politician at that time).

Btw, a very good two pager in July 1st G&M ROB on innovation by Konrad Yakabuski

Canada's innovation gap

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…
Cash

Economics as a profession has not exactly covered itself in glory. In fact it seems, at least to me, to be pretty much useless. I think that if economics was abolished as a profession or academic field, if every university closed down their economics department, if every company turfed their in-house economists I think nobody would notice a difference. It would be as if astrology had been discredited and abolished.

Andrew (not P or C)

Dumb. I suppose we don't need a central bank, either.

Cash

We need a central bank, assuming that central bankers exercise some common sense, but if central bankers carry on with their absurd zero interest rate policies, well, you can see the destruction for yourself. They had, and seemingly still have, this deflation bogeyman in their heads and so to slay this imaginary dragon (especially Greenspan and Bernanke) enabled the tech bubble and bust and the real estate bubble and bust and a huge financial crisis. They are continuing the policies that got us into this mess. BTW, I have a degree in economics from U of T (I'm in in my early 50s and retired a couple of years ago). I realized in 3rd year university what a load of bollocks the field was and so I spent my life doing something other than economics. It was, and still is, amazing to me that economics is presented as a serious field of study. Martin Levenson, who commented yesterday has it right, economic theory disregards human reality but I would go further than Martin in saying that economic theory as a result has zero utility and has no use in decision making. Economists need to do a serious re-think from top to bottom if the field and profession are to be taken seriously.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

The problem isn't that economics has nothing to offer but rather that economics has serious implications on social policy. This makes it politicized and therefore prone to a lack of objectivity, which in turn leads to serious errors.

One doesn't see this phenomenon in less political fields. There is no parallel in physics, for example, to the opposing Keynesian and Friedman models, both of which are held as incontrovertibly correct by their respective adherents.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

The problem isn't that economics has nothing to offer but rather that economics has serious implications on social policy. This makes it politicized and therefore prone to a lack of objectivity, which in turn leads to serious errors.

One doesn't see this phenomenon in less political fields. There is no parallel in physics, for example, to the opposing Keynesian and Friedman economic theories, both of which are held as incontrovertibly correct by their respective adherents.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Stephen, I assume that you are not suggesting that I am trying to bad mouth econos.

On the some of the points that you, Aidan and Krugman are making, I am in full agreement. Far too many people that have no or little understanding of economics make to man claims on economics behalf. But, I am not convinced that economists have a particular claim to said treatment. People expound on politics, social relations, religion, health, etc in the same manner. Same goes for bad-mouthing and, indeed, I think all the points listed. While I accept your point I think is part of a broader trend. We are in an age where expertise is simply no longer honored with the deference it used to be, and it is not a healthy thing.

But, I stand by my two posts above. By all appearances, an economic strategy has more on the table than pure economics and to the degree you are lamenting other experts talking about economics, I can on assume you would be equally unimpressed with these issues (e.g., health) not having their own experts at the table (or are there experts and than economic experts?).

As for the post that you responded to, my point was only that you, quoting Aidan, were painting one of the panel members expertise more narrowly than it actual was to make her look even more apt for the appointment.
Martin Levenson

Economics…the "the dismal science". If you lined up all the economists in the world, they wouldn't reach a conclusion. A great deal of economic theory is based on "abstracting", that is, deliberatly disregarding realities, such as the fact that people's motivations are much more complex than mere self-interest. As soon as one starts to consider reality, rather than abstractions, economic theory loses a lot of its utility.

That said, there's nothing wrong with economics as a field of study; it does provide theoretical constructs that can be useful in decision-making. The danger lies in conflating economic motivations over non-economic ones; there is little sophistication in policies based on economic theories that reduce people to mere economic actors.

That may be why many people reject many of our current Prime Minister's policies. They know, in their hearts…and in their brains…that these policies neither acknowledge nor accomodate the complexity of human beings.
Canuckistanian

very surprising that jack mintz isn't on it.

for all the effort alberta has put into promoting its academic institutions, this seems a missed opportunity to showcase some home grown expertise (such as the new school of public policy headed by the aforementioned).

shiny pretty blue ribbons…whatever
http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Friedrich Schiller probably has the best explanation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Friedrich Schiller (1759 – 1805)?

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

Yep.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

OK, so obviously I've not previously heard of Schiller, but I'm interested to learn more….and (predictably) I've gone to Wiki to get started…

I wasn't able to identify (with certainty) which of Schiller's ideas you are referring, but i'll guess it is one of these:

– a great moment has found a little people (probably not, but worth remembering for some future issue),
– it is possible to elevate the moral character of a people, by first touching their souls with beauty (more likely), or
– against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (hmmmmm).

One of those, or some other Schiller explanation?

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

That third one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Ah yes.

While I recognize that it is not directly applicable (talks about a lack of moral character rather than a lack of knowledge), do you suppose that the second Schiller idea in the list above has any relevance to the topic at hand?

In other words do you think that the manner in which an idea or fact is presented can have an effect on how well that idea is received?

My apologies in advance if a similar response shows up at some future time – I replied a little earlier by e-mail, but those electromagnetic pulses appear to have been lost in the ether.
matt

I'm so ripping that name-drop-smack-down off

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Stephen, I assume that you are not suggesting that I am trying to bad mouth econos.

On the some of the points that you, Aidan and Krugman are making, I am in full agreement. Far too many people that have no or little understanding of economics make to man claims on economics behalf. But, I am not convinced that economists have a particular claim to said treatment. People expound on politics, social relations, religion, health, etc in the same manner. Same goes for bad-mouthing and, indeed, I think all the points listed. While I accept your point I think is part of a broader trend. We are in an age where expertise is simply no longer honored with the deference it used to be, and it is not a healthy thing.

But, I stand by my two posts above. By all appearances, an economic strategy has more on the table than pure economics and to the degree you are lamenting other experts talking about economics, I can on assume you would be equally unimpressed with these issues (e.g., health) not having their own experts at the table (or are there experts and than economic experts?).

As for the post that you responded to, my point was only that you, quoting Aidan, were painting one of the panel members expertise more narrowly than it actual was to make her look even less apt for the appointment.
Dot

This discussion over the merits/downside of having economists on Stelmach's panel is purely academic.

This gov't is probably the most free market/do nothing thing since Ralph Klein's. You could be the most learned economist in Canada, and you're opinion would mean diddly squat. Be careful of what some economists wish – they may be included in the panel.

http://intensedebate.com/people/StephenGordon StephenGordon

I agree that Stelmach might see danger from having more economists on the panel. They might actually take the council's mandate seriously.

Dot

I used to berate the Pembina Institute (premier environmental NGO in Alberta) directly over their inbededness with Alberta polluters and gov't. They were on endless committees and meetings. After a couple of years, they finally clued in:

http://alberta.pembina.org/media-release/1678
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

as a point of clarification I am not certain who the they are and thus exactly what you mean. Are you saying that econos will only take the work they are asked to do seriously if they are surrounded only by other economists; or, are you saying other economist will only pay attention to the work of the panel if it was fully stocked by econos; or, are you saying the panel members as a group would only take the work seriously if they were econos, because non-econo members will not take the work seriously?

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Thanks for the interesting and very relevant Krugman passage, Stephen.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Economics seems like a futile pursuit only until you start to think what would happen if only non-economists were left to analyse the economy.
Martin Levenson

Jack, I wasn't proposing that only non-economists should be left to analyse the economy; I was suggesting that if one desires to develop sophisticated public policy, MORE than economic issues should be considered.

Currently it seems that, for simplicity's sake, people are being reduced to being economic actors and consumers ONLY. The problem is, as much as the current Conservative appears to wish otherwise, people and their needs and motivations are rather more complex.

Simple is as simple does.

Cash

Right you are Martin.

Dot

Is this a generic thesis or is it taylored specifically to Alberta? You know, single party in power forever, economy dominated by one industry, lasso laissez faire, history of doing nothing…

Any thoughts on when Stelmach will announce the addition of Sarah Palin to the Committee? The timing seems about right – meeting every 6 months or so for the next three years, her resignation last Friday, her "expertise" on energy – "being able to take on big oil". Seems a natural.
Cash

I would reply by saying that govts still can't act countercyclically. We had a generation of high govt deficits coupled with high unemployment and high inflation. Stimulative deficits don't work and that Philips curve is a work of imaginative fiction. Do you think that central banks have done a good job of managing the supply of money and credit? Do you think that the tech bubble and real estate bubble came from outer space? They were the result of central bank monetary policy. Inflation is always and everywhere the result of central banks' policies. But do you only measure the CPI or do you use some common sense and look at other things like an absurdly inflated stock and real estate market? Do you think that having currency speculators determine the relative values of currencies is a good thing? Look at the job they did on Canadian manufacturing. Do you think that commodity speculators add value? A billion people were starving last year because of speculative runups in commodity prices. I would argue that the progress made since the 19th century comes as no thanks to economists. Rather I would credit the energy of millions of people trying to improve their own lives.