Several economic commentators have linked to CoreEcon - the blog of Joshua Gans, an 'economist' (and I use the term loosely) from Melbourne Business School who specialises in strategy, competition and information economics.
In a nutshell, this means - he uses all kinds of sophisticated methods to come to stupid conclusions.
But it is indeed a lucrative gig, if you can get it. You get invited to Kevin Rudd's 2020 talkfest, you get to be a policy adviser and have articles published by mainstream newspapers.
You get to suggest all kinds of new regulations and roles for government meddling all in some "social interest".
Remember this - economics is the science of choice. Of making decisions, prioritising and allocating the finite resources that are available. It is perfectly clear that individuals making decisions in their own interest and in pursuit of maximising their happiness are much more succesful at this than a centralised bureaucracy, no matter how benign or intelligent the policy inventors may be.
Yet somehow, a person can deliver a slick 10 minute presentation on why government must spend billions of public dollars on broadband and still call himself an economist ? Watch this youtube and laugh as he complains about the devastating status quo.
Socialists often despair at homelessness, poverty, illness and poor education.. yet this one seems to despair about Australia having download limits and slow upload speeds. (GASP !!)
This is a perfect example of why some economists... are not. And why economics has a reputation as the dismal science. Only an 'economist' can suggest we'd be better off with baby bonuses and with broadband subsidies and all kinds of fancy new government spending.
April Fool's joke, right? You couldn't actually be suggesting that anyone who promotes a role for government is therefore not an economist? I guess that rules out Milton Friedman, and anyone to his left...
ReplyDeleteAnyone who suggests there is a role for government spending in technology infrastructure and broadband has clearly got their priorities wrong.
ReplyDeleteNo its not a proper role of government to spend on broadband, and the Youtube presentation is really lacking any evidence. Maybe he is an economist, albeit a very dismal one.
The priorities are so out of whack its astonishing.
Hate to mention this, but Gans' position on broadband is at the libertarian end of the spectrum i.e. set up the conditions where small entrepreneur can provide broadband that suits local needs, and then leave them to it. It's in opposition to the "we need one big network" school.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm pretty sure Joshua thinks the Baby Bonus should be scrapped.
ReplyDeleteThen why would he present slides with points that call for a government role, and for regulation ?
ReplyDeleteThe free market approach is to sell off all government assets and remove government ownership from the equation.
You know I present considered views based on research and I document them fully. They are not black and white.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, you have shown yourself incapable of understanding even basic arguments made by commentators. It was so embarrassing a set of mis-statements and mis-understanding that I initially thought the post was an April fool's joke and commented about it on my blog as such. It clearly isn't and that is sad.
Economics is called the 'dismal science' because it pours cold water over the suggestions of NON-economists. It does this by asking one simple question: who's paying for it?
ReplyDeleteIf Joshua Gans has worked out the costs & benefits of his proposed course of action and come to a non-Milton Friedmanite conclusion then his theory may be wrong, but he's still an economist because he's set out the options in a way no other social science (e.g. sociology) can.
I personally find the Productivity Commission to be especially good at pouring cold water over the arguments of Australian economists and non-economists.
the 'youtube' didn't lend your arguments any merit. I've read Josh's blog on occasion, i'm sure he has come out against the baby bonus.
ReplyDelete