Difference between revisions of "Talk:Lecture 6"
m (→The Moralist and the Economist) |
S.Schimler (talk | contribs) (→The Moralist and the Economist) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
At the same time - do we want our leaders only being policy wonks? Maybe I'm a biased American, but my sense is they're trying that in the EU to not so great effect. Somehow I think if Steve traveled time traveled to 1890 with his power point and showed all this dead-weight loss stuff to Senator Sherman, that wouldn't move the gentelman from Ohio all that much. But the emotional appeal of justice and the strong exploiting the weak is something that's going to get a piece of legislation through. So maybe we need moralizing legislators and cold-blooded judges to sort out the mess they cause? | At the same time - do we want our leaders only being policy wonks? Maybe I'm a biased American, but my sense is they're trying that in the EU to not so great effect. Somehow I think if Steve traveled time traveled to 1890 with his power point and showed all this dead-weight loss stuff to Senator Sherman, that wouldn't move the gentelman from Ohio all that much. But the emotional appeal of justice and the strong exploiting the weak is something that's going to get a piece of legislation through. So maybe we need moralizing legislators and cold-blooded judges to sort out the mess they cause? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[USER: S.Schimler]] | ||
| + | reply to JSpaith | ||
| + | |||
| + | Politicians have to appease their constitutents, who have ideologies. For financial advice, that is why we have a Federal Reserve Board, which tries to give us non-partisan advice. I hope that that cuts through lots of the poltiical garbage. But when you look at a recommendation to deal with social security, the politicians just won't touch it. How much evidence the politicans are willing to take into consideration changes on a person to person basis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is interesting that you talk about going back in time to talk to Senator Sherman. You should take a look at Thomas McGraw's pultizer prize winning book, "Prophets of Regulation" (1984), where the Harvard biz school professor looks at mistakes that regulators made in the past. For example, he critizes regulators like Louis Brandeis for not understanding economics. Since a lot of the economic evidence wasn't really known at the time, I find it hard to blame them. Today's politicians, however, can take all of the blame. | ||
Revision as of 05:30, 6 November 2004
Lecture 6 Discussion
Comment on Cartels
Mr. Maurer had a great lecture tonight and I'd like to comment on one thing. When talking about Cartels, it was said that "courts bought the argument until 1911" that Cartels were needed. It was said in such a manner that implied that it was never needed. However, when you look at the predatory pricing of the railroads, it was clear that some collusion would be beneficial. In fact, that is why the industry (not just the populists!) called for the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The government was called in to, basically, help make a cartel.
The Moralist and the Economist
It's interesting that in the slide deck last night, the only overtly moralistic argument I can recall was Sherman's quote about kings of countries and kings of production. Everything else was economic analysis, as expected. The politicians who decide these issues (while on camera at least) live in the moralistic world, however. Either "we have to bring the big boys down" or "the government should stay the hell out of our lives". I'm wondering how many of them have the depth to live in the more economic world even if they wanted to? Do they deeply read these policy papers that are prepared for them and act based on that advice, or do they skim the papers and look for talking points for the side they've already decided to support? Obviously every politician is different, but I'm wondering how this splits up?
At the same time - do we want our leaders only being policy wonks? Maybe I'm a biased American, but my sense is they're trying that in the EU to not so great effect. Somehow I think if Steve traveled time traveled to 1890 with his power point and showed all this dead-weight loss stuff to Senator Sherman, that wouldn't move the gentelman from Ohio all that much. But the emotional appeal of justice and the strong exploiting the weak is something that's going to get a piece of legislation through. So maybe we need moralizing legislators and cold-blooded judges to sort out the mess they cause?
USER: S.Schimler reply to JSpaith
Politicians have to appease their constitutents, who have ideologies. For financial advice, that is why we have a Federal Reserve Board, which tries to give us non-partisan advice. I hope that that cuts through lots of the poltiical garbage. But when you look at a recommendation to deal with social security, the politicians just won't touch it. How much evidence the politicans are willing to take into consideration changes on a person to person basis.
It is interesting that you talk about going back in time to talk to Senator Sherman. You should take a look at Thomas McGraw's pultizer prize winning book, "Prophets of Regulation" (1984), where the Harvard biz school professor looks at mistakes that regulators made in the past. For example, he critizes regulators like Louis Brandeis for not understanding economics. Since a lot of the economic evidence wasn't really known at the time, I find it hard to blame them. Today's politicians, however, can take all of the blame.
