The Economics Party

My jaw dropped when I heard that presidential candidate Clinton dismissed the unified opinion of every economist on the planet and supported the gas tax rebate. The rebate is John McCain’s proposal. I think that proves both of them are unqualified to be president. Obama isn’t much better when it comes to sorting out economic policy from pandering, although he did avoid that particular landmine.

So I decided to start my own political party. I call it the Economics Party. There’s no paperwork involved, and you don’t even have to stop being a Democrat or Republican or whatever to join. The Economics Party won’t have its own candidates. All we’ll do is agree to vote for the candidate with the best long term economic policy, according to the consensus of leading economists.

The Economics Party would ignore superstition in its decisions. Here are a few things I think would end up on the platform, assuming most leading economists agree:

- Withdraw from Iraq
- More aggressive energy policy (back off on ethanol)
- More sane tax policies
- Limited government
- Legalize doctor assisted suicide
- Keep abortion legal
- Decriminalize marijuana
- Strong education policy

We’d make some exceptions for humanitarian reasons. For example, if a natural disaster hits a poor part of the country, it might be cheaper to let everyone die, but you have to put life ahead of money at some point.

The platform might look Libertarian, but it has differences. For example, a Libertarian might be opposed to the government making people wear motorcycle helmets. The Economics Party would just look at the likely higher cost of insurance in a helmet-free world and decide on that basis. I don’t know which way it would come out.

The Economics Party would be committed to changing its policy recommendation whenever the facts warranted. We’re pro flip-flop when it makes sense. In other words, our brains function properly.

If thirty or forty million people join the Economics Party, all major candidates would have to start paying attention to the consensus of economists. At the very least, voters would become more aware of what the leading economists think makes sense. That seems like a good thing.

Are you in?

Comments

[Jesus]

I'm in!

[Glenn]

Decriminalize marijuana and tax it! We'll payoff the debt and no one will care. Awesome!

[Paul Dove]

The critical point in all of this is the phrase "consensus of leading economists". With the present state of the art what that actually means is asking those economists to choose a model of the economy that all, or the majority, agree most accurately predicts the future. Of course you don't actually need economists to rate the available models, they only need to provide them and then they can be independently rated using historical data.

But in choosing the correct model you've only met the first challenge, next you need to feed it with accurate starting values (not always available) and interpret the way each political candidate's policies will affect the economy (almost impossible). And finally you have to evaluate the outcome of each scenario against every other, weighing total wealth and wealth distribution including a value for every man, woman, child, unborn child, animal, plant and structure.

But no-one would really need to fully understand the accepted model; if it performs accurately that's enough. And when it fails it can be replaced with a better one. In fact you don't need the economists at all, just some way of producing an accurate model, possibly using a neural network plus a genetic algorithm.

Then to get accurate information into the model you could let it collect it itself; allow it access to all of the available information directly in real time. There are many systems that already collect statistical data from many published sources, so use the best of these and add all of the information held by the government in all of their databases.

That only leaves the evaluation of the total wealth at the end of each scenario. At first this would still be a job for the economists and their advisors (how much is a sunset worth, etc.) but over time the model would grow to include the knowledge to do this itself. Anything less would risk being influenced by prejudice and superstition.

After a few years it would become clear that the models predictions are good enough, and elections are no longer necessary; just let the model choose the winner. Then, as our wealth grows and grows, it will become clear that it would be better to use the model to also select candidates for office directly. And the best candidates will certainly be those with only one policy, to make every decision based upon the predictions of the all knowing, all powerful, economic model.

[Ian]

I'm in! :)

[BobNL]

I am not a USA resident, so my vote doesn't count.

But if it would, I would say sorry, but no.

As you point out yourself, 'at some point, you have to put life ahead of money'.
You would also have to put quality of life ahead of money at many points, that includes e.g. the lives of non-productive people: the sick, the old, the incompetent ones. Wouldn't you agree they have a right to live (in a decent way)? We spend (waist?) a lot of money to make live more decent for these people. That doesn't make economic sense, but I'm willing to pay for it.

[simplulo]

"The Economics Party would just look at the likely higher cost of insurance in a helmet-free world and decide on that basis.

I hope that "leading economists" have heard of *risk homeostasis*: if drivers increase their risky behavior because they are using helmets, seat belts, airbags, absurdly low speed limits, and SUVs (but not mobile phones), what have you gained besides a reduction in freedom?

Instead of a mess case-by-case examination of every issue, how about *rule utilitarianism*? For example, how about a general policy of maximum decentralization: federal to state, and state to local? Economists should agree on that: they don't like monopolies, and they do like something approaching perfectly competitive market. Competitive federalism: let the states compete amongst themselves for customers.

"Strong education policy"--what does that mean? How about a policy that produces a strong education industry, like the same policy (none) that produced the world-leading US universities?

[jeo]

Great idea. Economists have a way of thinking through unintended consequences that we sorely need.

On helmets: I'm not sure why insurance companies couldn't handle it on their own, and just lower rates for riders who agree to wear helmets. Just deny coverage if they agreed to lower rates and crash without a helmet. It's not like a rider with a serious head injury is likely to put his helmet on.

I'm fairly neutral on abortion but I think most people will have a hard time seeing what economics has to do with it...and whatever the economics based argument is, I suspect a lot of people will find it repulsive. Might be best to avoid that one.

Finally, this could be disastrous unless economists take care to take externalities into account. They've done a very poor job of considering overall long-term costs of environmental damage. Even now, the GDP doesn't take environmental health into account, even though the present value of the long-term costs we're likely to face is huge.

[Stef]

Didn't Hitler turn the German economy around, in the beginning?

[Clair]

What does your guru say about the total number of readers available for this little gambit? It is a persuasive idea.

[joey]

I'm starting another party too.

It's called the Radical Center Party.

I'm the Prez, Secretary-Treasurer and Chief Bottle Washer.

I'm the only member and membership is closed.

I vote for only one thing:

When the government closes up shop and everyone goes home...permanently, I'll disband it.

My party has a long future, wouldn't you say?

[ortelius]

Good first step. But go little bit forward.
How you imagine "limited government" and congruently "aggressive energy policy" and "Strong education policy". It is nonsense. Limited government shouldn't have anything like energy and education policy. Peoples are responsible for procuring their energy needs and for education of their children, not government (if you think opposite, you are not differ from Obama or Clinton).

[yabbadabba]

I would have to say, Welcome to Holland!

[Elisa]

Wait, how does decriminalizing marihuana and legalizing doctor assisted suicide help economics? (Or even keeping abortion legal, for that matter?)

You'd have to explain those, as they don't seem very clear cut to me.

[Dale]

According to Chuck Colson (see URL) some of your policies are not economic good sense, but merely the ideologies that are associated with economic liberalism. http://tinyurl.com/4wbpma

[Nirav]

Hahaha
Nice one, I am in for sure.
There should be one in every country

[velkairiwyth]

I see a number of posts about fuel costs... $4 a gallon? thats 3.3 Litres in the US isnt it? lucky buggers :p

its now averaging about £1.10 here in the uk per liter (about £3.70 per US gallon - which is about $7 a gallon.) fun times.

I wanna move to Germany :p

The party makes some sense - but it does seem a very frightening concept - like something from a cyber-punk futuristic movie, for example - it is infinately cheaper to execute anyone who would go to prison than maintain prison facilities and staff them... (50c of electricity and a furnace to destroy the bodies compared to what, $50k a year per prisoner overheads - and when they get out they may be likely to go ahead and do it again...) financially - it makes perfect sense, but morally... well... it scales, but is a frightening concept (considering 90% of criminals are probabyl a victim of circumstance (e.g provocation - not paying attention and ploughing into a bus que, being so desperate for cash they hold up a liquor store etc etc. the rest are probably psychotic and should be executed anyway :p)

[Nicholas]

I'm in! Pity I live in South Africa

Reason I'm in is I see more stupid people dying under your method. Which is always a good thing.

[Jay]

Scott - What happened to serious posts on a Sunday, funny posts the rest of the week? C'mon man, I hate my job and need to laugh first thing in the morning....help me out here!!!!

[Dan Beeston]

This is the most sensible idea I've ever heard you say. (And they have ranged from quite sensible to not very sensible and all the way to 'no basic notion of how statistics work')

[Francesco Orsenigo]

The bug issue is where to exactly draw the line.
Someone will think having poor niggers flooded is not that bad.
Some will think killing poor embryos is worse than killing people in a country far away.

If you can set this better, the party is going to enjoy some success.

Anyway, wonderful idea, I'd love to be in but I'm italian... Should this thing start I'll do my best to support it anyway.

[Dean]

"We’re pro flip-flop when it makes sense. In other words, our brains function properly."

I'm in.

...though I'm not sure how legalizing marijuana would help the economy (unless there's a tax on it?).

To those who find loopholes in the system: Good, keep finding loopholes. The more loopholes you find, the more creative we can be when trying to bring our country out of debt.

[Rajan R]

Two economists, three opinions, Scott. I mean, there are things where there is a practical consensus on - and a billion other things where heavy feuding still occurs (read an Economics journal - remove decorum and they'll descend to name-calling).

[LawrenceK]

"if a natural disaster hits a poor part of the country, it might be cheaper to let everyone die, but you have to put life ahead of money at some point."

The basis for economic policy judgments is societal welfare (or sum of individual utilities), not monetary cost. So sound economic policy would include disaster relief and social welfare programs.

[synapticmisfires]

Many members of my AP Economics course suggested doing this (that was 3 years ago now). As time goes on, I witness more ignorance or pandering on the part of politicians and I learn more in economics (my current major) and the idea just seems better and better. Neither of the two major parties, nor any currently defined third parties (the libertarians are just as bad as any of the others because they ignore public goods and externalities) line up well at all with economics. Impartial ratings and endorsements, if enough voters listened, would fix that.

In the meantime, I know he isn't perfect, but Obama is clearly the optimal candidate in terms of economics.

[Francis Ocoma]

- Legalize doctor assisted suicide
- Keep abortion legal
- "but you have to put life ahead of money **AT SOME POINT**."

Well, it's good to see our future economic overlords will... at some point... still have mercy upon _some_ of us insignificant, unimportant, uneconomical soylent greens.

It's too bad I'm not American because shouting "COUNT ME OUT!" would be redundant.

[Kyle P]

I'm in.

[Robert T]

Cool! Call yourselves the "Neodems."

[Patrick]

It would be interesting, especially considering the fact that the rule of good economic policy usually makes for bad politics.

Good economic policy would be for the privatization of education. It is bad politics to cut federal funding for education. Another good economic policy would be the dismantling of the FDA. It is bad politics to say the government no longer ensures the quality of prescription medicine.

I don't assume the population will grow a brain come the formation of this party, but I would be interested to see the politicians dance to accommodate if such a party was sizable enough to matter.

[Planet Apex]

Count me in dude, albeit I oppose these proposals on religious and ethical grounds.

- Legalize doctor assisted suicide
- Keep abortion legal
- Decriminalize marijuana

Otherwise hencefore I'm officially an economics party fan.

[Vijay]

Dear Scott,

I am IN. I like to add one more economic agenda. Stop outsourcing. With so much of outsourcing done, we are doing lot more work in India which is pretty bad.

The economic party rocks.

Did you forgot to add the GO-GREEN agenda? Does it make less economics right now?

Cheers,
Vijay

[Shawn]

I still dont know if I am in or not. Can I have a couple more days to think about it. Please let me know if this is fine or not.

[Kay]

Please, sign me up.
I'm in

[Kay]

- Decriminalize marijuana -

yes! i like this most!

age 4x
Hong Kong

[Popeman]

Wouldn't it make the most economic sense to not campaign at all, thereby saving millions in adverstising, transport, media strategies, employees, random phone calls and bunting?

[sandeep]

So, your idea is to rely on "expert" opinion? The same (or, at least the same category) experts who predicted:
1. Oil will go down to $5 a barrel (The Economist in 1999).
2. We will run out of food and the world will starve (experts - economist and agricultural scientists in the 70s).
3. Mobile phones will be a niche market and there is no point investing in it (Mckinsey to AT&T in the mid 80s) - I only bring this up because Mckinsey also provides consulting services to Govts and its consultants are considered experts in there respective fields
4. Other instances of "expert" opinion - too numerous to list

The point is this - expert opinion, especially in economics, is not necessarily a better choice. In fact, it probably does more harm given the complacency it generates.

[Andrew Dean]

Wow, "libertarian" must be a real swear word in the US, for you to agree so wholeheartedly with their views, yet go to such lengths to distance yourself from the "l-word"

Is it the gun freaks? If so, I sympathise.

Andrew
Pro gun control Libertarian

[plen]

I think your platform isn't solid enough for a simple reason. Economics is like a set of tools to help think about the world, it isn't ideology. It is like the difference between policy-makers who favour low inflation over low unemployment. Both are perfectly defendable economic positions, but reflect very different political philosophy. I don't see how would the Economics party resolve such a dilemma?

[Jeremy]

"More sane tax policies?" "Strong educational policy?"

Yeah, I think education is good. Raise your hand if you don't.

Why not just say "Do good things for our economy?" That pretty much covers it.

[Felipe Dex]

ALL IN! I'm going to found a filial of this in Brazil!!!! My guess is that we need it more than you do!!!!

[gogo]

Economics rates only slightly higher than astrology for me. The biggest problem I have with Economists is that they forget the difference between their models and the real world. They want to study something complicated, so they create a model to simplify it. Fair enough. But then having gone away and played with the numbers, they start lobbying everyone to change reality to fit their models!

[Patrick]

I'm in! I know this is just infotainment, but seriously, you should make this a real political party.

[martymankins]

I'm in. How do I join? Signing up is hard if there is no paperwork. Just tell me where to meet for the caucuses.

[George]

Scott, if you run for President you have my vote.

[Peter]

The Freakonomics Blog recently had an relevant article:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/hug-an-economist-we-need-it

There are a couple of interesting points in the article.

1) Quote from Sentor Menendez:
"You know, thank god that we don’t have economists making, necessarily, public policy, because they don’t necessarily feel pains that average Americans [feel]."

2) Most economists have Democrat preferences. The actual stats are in the article but it amounts to about 3 times as many lean toward Democrats as Republicans. Interesting given the Replublican support base (big business, high income etc.)

[N]

Agree on all 8.

Agree on a few things DMented talks about as well.

Hey can we have a venn diagram on what consitutes the voting population in the USA and what constitutes the people visiting your site and finding them agreeing with you?

It would be interesting to see how many internationals also visit your site (tho you refuse to acknowledge them ;)).

[burt]

wow. is it just me or does this sound like a cross of communism, facism, anarchy, and Hitlers idea of a perfect nation? Is the next step killing the over rich? why not put them in ghettos. its not like anyones tried this before

Burt ((rambling))((unserious))((overdramtizing)) truB

[Jon]

But most economists realize that the opportunity cost of voting is greater than the odds that your one vote will matter. So you'd have a party of non-voters. I guess their monetary contributions may be significant?

[Dave Oblad]

I'm on board with you Scott.

I would like to see those anti-smoking folks spend a little less money in their
propaganda war on smokers and direct their fear towards those that come to work
sick with the flu. See.. I smoke.. my wife didn't.. so I smoked outside etc just
because she said it stunk. I agreed. Then a co-worker brought a flu to work, she
caught it and died from it. And the majority of workers (managers) still have
that arcane idea that a sick worker is a real trooper. I say that if a worker
brings a flu to work.. they should be fired on the spot! My wife lived with me,
a smoker, for 30 years. Then a flu bug brought by a co-worker killed her in 1 week.

And as far as smoking goes.. get real! The insurance tables used for most of
last century indicated a non-smoker lived an average of just two years longer than
a smoker. The claim that smoking causes cancer is completely false! Smoking
can trigger cancer in a person who is already inclined toward cancer.

Example: To test the carcinogenetic aspects of a substance, science bred mice that
are prone to cancer. That way they get faster results. If they bred mice not to be
cancer prone, tests would take forever. Folks with a family history of cancer will
very likely die of cancer eventually. So for that reason, I accept the current laws
that isolate me from non-smokers. But these guys have made it a vendetta. Now they
are talking about forbidding smoking in cars with pets and or whole neighborhoods.

Cars still kill/injure more people than any other non-natural force. Do you see
anyone clamping down on non-essential driving?

I'm all for legalizing Pot. I know first hand about the medical benefits.
I was a mess.. asthma, psoriasis, ulcers, insomnia. Then I started smoking pot.
Didn't like the high.. but that's just a short term stage when smoking it daily.
All my health problems vanished within two months and stayed that way for 12 years.
I stopped pot a few years ago and now my health issues are back!

Foods that make people fat are legal. Fat = heart attacks = death. Simple..

I don't want Big Brother running this country.. but he already is! And worse..
Big Brother is an idiot!

So... Scott, I'm behind you 100%. Time for a government shift towards intelligence.

Best wishes from Dave :^)

[Luke]

Do we have to be American?

[david]

don't stop these great posts coming!

you and dave barry should team up...

[John]

I'm in - I only wish we could get the rest to follow us like lemmings - then again, that is part of the problem in the first place

[Tom]

Never. Economy is meant to serve people - not the other way. Degrading individuals, society and culture to pure economical factors is definitely a totalitarian (and primitive) concept, not very different from radical communism as in Nort Korea or Pol Pot's Cambodia.

[Ricky]

Count me in!

[wrench]

Sorry, no. You missed the huge economic benefits from higher productivity and lower health care costs of ridding this country of tobacco, alchohol, high fructose corn syrup and trans fats. And I fail to see the economic benefits of suicide, abortion, and marijuana. Plus the long term economic benefits of cut-and-run from Iraq is unclear.

[Mark]

"No, but I can demonstrate that they use data and rational thought to reach conclusions. The alternative is emotion and superstition. Since those are the only options, you have to pick one. -- Scott"

You've set up a bit of a false dichotomy here, as well as a specious one. Is it really better to use data and rational thought to reach conclusions if the conclusions are just as erroneous as the ones from emotion and superstition?

To put it another way, if some Guru is able to use his intuition to reach the correct conclusion 90% of the time, would it still be better to use data and rational thought if they led to the correct conclusion only 50% of the time?

A rather ridiculous hypothetical, sure, but it shows your own means-justify-the-ends fallacy.

I said it's a false dichotomy because, as you've told me and at least one other person in these comments, it's either your way or superstition, whereas, in reality, there are several different rational ways to interpret data and economic theories are merely one.

Since you can't demonstrate that the consensus of economists has been correct on the majority of issues, can you at least demonstrate that the economist community is able to, in general, actually reach consensuses? That say, 90% (allowing for 10% crackpots) of economists agree on most issues?

Also, are economic theories usually falsifiable? Have any experiments been conducted on a scale anywhere near the complexity of a national or international economy?

Since we're talking about data and rational thought here...upon examining the data you've given us a system that,

1) by your own admission, does not produce demonstrably better results than either the current system, or randomness, or, in fact, any other conceivable system; and

2) has an unquantifiable, ill-defined set of exceptional circumstances (ie "you have to put life ahead of money at some point.")

would it be rational to adopt that system?

You're advocating a sort of technocracy, but limiting it arbitrarily and detrimentally to your own field of expertise. If you'd like to open it up to scientists, I'd be onboard, since the scientific method produces better results than superstition or randomness. Until then, what you're arguing is that your way is better simply because you have a process, regardless of how well the process works. That sounds familiar...have you noticed your hair becoming pointier lately?

[Keenan]

I'm in.

[Joshua Rothhaas]

Count me in

[Neighbor Dave]

As my freedom is more important than any current whining, I'll remain a Libertarian. But I wish you all the best. It would beat either of the 2 current frat houses.

N.D.

[Michael]

I love this line, made me laugh out loud:
"In other words, our brains function properly."

It reminded me of this:
"I have trouble believing in organized religion because my brain doesn't turn off like that."

[Dave]

RE: Zardoz
Not getting drawn into the whole legalizing pot (I don't smoke, I don't care) but the problem with studies on whether or not marijuana causes cancer are flawed. Namely because many because pot is illegal and there is a stigma attached to admitting to using illegal drugs in research studies and/or CDC findings. Cigarettes are much easier to track due to the fact that they are legal, taxed, tracked, and widely studied. Plus what do you do when someone smokes cigarettes and weed? And at what ratio? Is it a pack a day and a joint at 4:20?

In general putting things in your lungs that don't belong is bad. Now should the government legalize it? I turn that back over to the Economist party approach. Does smoking cigarettes or pot result in a higher overall cost in terms of healthcare? If so, make cigarettes illegal, if not light up.

[Jeff]

"Economist" party may be a bit of a misnomer for this party; of the items listed only tax policy, government size, drug control, and education policy are ones where economists have a uniquely informed view of the topic.

[Jim]

I have to say that the stupidest thing that I hasve heard regarding tax policy came in the last Democrat debate. Obama was presented with the premise that historical data has shown that an increase in capital the gains tax rate has always resulted in a reduction in capital gains tax income. He was asked if this fact changed his stated aim to raise the capital gains tax. He stated that he would still support such an increase because it would be more fair. Maybe I'm a retard, but I thought the purpose of taxation was to pay for NEEDED government expenditures. If taxing "The Rich" at a lower rate results in increased revenues for the government, why is that a bad idea?

[ParanoidIndividual]

It makes a lot of sense. Managing the economy is the best way to manage everything else. No one will go to war with a major trading partner. A good economy means fewer social problems, and thus lower crime. A good economy means more funding for services, and prepares the country to weather any crises or disasters. And though people might fear that using money as the basis for most decisions could be frightfully immoral, it's in the interest of the economy to have workers and consumers happy and safe.

Most third-world countries going to war? It's not really about religion or racial divides. It's about economy, and they just use various causes as an umbrella to rally under. I think EVERY country needs an economic party.

[Erin]

Sounds fantastic (by which I mean logical - they become more and more synonymous at all levels of meaning)! Count me in!

[Enginerd]

"For example, if a natural disaster hits a poor part of the country, it might be cheaper to let everyone die, but you have to put life ahead of money at some point."

Economically speaking, their lives are roughly worth the present value of their income. Alternatively, you could assign all humans the same value (average over the country say), and if it costs more than that to save peoples lives you wouldn't spend it.

I know it sounds callous, but money is an allocation of resources. If you spend a million dollars to save 10 people, and the next year you need a million to save 1,000 but no longer have it, you probably shouldn't have saved those 10 people in the first place.

Seeing as the vast majority of problems can be formulated in terms of Economics, I think this is a good idea.

[wes]

if you do this for real then (in no particular order):

1. I'd join and campaign for this organization
2. The world WILL be a different place
3. The candidates would have to change their approach
4. Media would have to change their approach
5. You might start the snowball effect of a reason revolution

[Russ]

My hand is up, I am in!

[Doug Johnson]

I will not join the Economists Party. This group will be utterly redundant once Dogbert's New Ruling Class is in charge.

[TallDave]

- More aggressive energy policy (back off on ethanol)
- More sane tax policies
- Limited government
- Legalize doctor assisted suicide
- Keep abortion legal
- Decriminalize marijuana
- Strong education policy

These are pretty good, and were supported by prominent economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Ethanol does actually make sense economically, although that was not the case when oil was under $50/bbl. Cellulosic ethanol in particular makes a lot of sense.

Education needs to be exposed to the free market; public education is ruining the country. Parents should be able to choose between schools that compete for their tax dollars. This can be achieved via charter schools and vouchers.

[Bret]

No.

Tyranny of the economists wouldn't be something I'd like to live under. There's more to civilization than just maximizing economic efficiency and output.

[Justin]

I'm in!

[CPB]

Scott,

Agree with everything except a Strong Education Policy.

Let's Separate School & State!

[William SMith]

Sure. Just come up with a usable definition of "rationality" for defining rational economic behavior, because all of economics is based on various, and often violently-conflicting, definitions of "rationality".

[Cavpollo]

yeah, im in, even though I dont even know anything more than inflation and recession about economics, hehe

but your idea of saving money and by letting people die sounds a little bit frivolous...

[TallDave]

"- Withdraw from Iraq"

Yes, abandoning a country to be taken over by the most violent and anti-American extrremist elements rather than supporting their democratically elected government is a wonderful strategy for long-term economic security. It's not like we'd suffer more $2 trillion terrorist attacks after AQ established itself in the Sunni areas.

While we're at it, we can withdraw from S Korea and tell Israel we're cutting all ties with them too. Hey, those countries are costing us money! And Kosovo, what have they ever done for us? If the Serbs want to massacre them, hey, it doesn't cost us anything, right?

[JR]

Economists are like weather forecasters: They usually don't achieve consensus until it's too late. And even then, they can't agree on what really happened, let alone what caused it.

Economics is not immune to superstition because it's not a science. The only way to do controlled economics experiments is in a lab, where people behave differently than in the real world. Everything else economists do is pretty much like trying to read last week's tea leaves amongst the cigarette butts.

[TallDave]

"My jaw dropped when I heard that presidential candidate Clinton dismissed the unified opinion of every economist on the planet and supported the gas tax rebate."

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Economists don't oppose the gas tax rebate in principle, they just say it's too minor to make much difference and thus this is just political pandering.

This is not as though the candidates suddenly decided the value of the dollar would be set according to the value of Pokemon cards.

It's also interesting that ecnomists are suddenly a big deal when they're talking about how useless a small tax cut is, but virtually ignored on issues that actually matter like national health care and overall taxation rates.

[theneedler]

I looked over the comments and I don't get it. None of the comments that I read seem to see the biggest fallacy in your suggestion. I'll sum it up in a quote that applies to many categories of people, including politicians and lawyers, but certainly applies to economists as well:

"The only time you can be sure that an economist is telling you the truth is when he is calling another economist a liar."

[Rick Wiedeman]

I don't think economists can be counted on to have consistent, verifiable theories -- except in hindsight.

Might as well endorse astrologers... or do the ol' have a monkey throw a dart at the WSJ stock listing, and follow that investment advice.

[dpick]

hell yeah

[olie]

I'm in.

And it's still Libertarian. The only thing is that the Libs want to combine smaller government such that MY bashing my head in with no helmet doesn't impact YOUR insurance rates. "Personal accountability", and all that.

(Maybe there's encouragement for no-helmet riders to pay more, or get a "no medical care" ryder, or some such...)

[Kevin]

Count me in!

[Trevor]

Mr. Adams. You seem to be forgetting the joke " If you put all the Economists in the world end to end, you wouldn't reach a conclusion". I'd be for this idea, but Economists aren't like Physicsists. If you ask ten Economists a question you would probably have ten different answers, most of them starting with "it depends". Oh, and I am a graduate student in economics, so I encounter PhD level economists on a daily basis.

[squigs]

Yessss. The whole going against the opinion of all economists does seem like an interesting choice. I'd have thought that even if you can't find an insane fringe economist willing to back you then it's probably a bad idea.

But anyway, what is a "sane" tax policy? For example, a poll tax sounds sane but tends to upset people.

[Cyrus]

I'm in. Who are we endorsing, then?

[Elver]

I'd be in, but I don't live in the USA.

[branch]

I'm in.

[Tom Foster]

The response you're most likely to get is "I agree in principle, but want to quibble about exactly what the criteria should be for a 'humanitarian exception'".

For my part, I agree in principle. But I think continuing the war in Iraq and an otherwise neo-con foreign policy, should be considered a 'humanitarian exception'.

[Leora]

Ah, the sound of a good theory hitting the brick wall of reality. KaSPLAT!

Let me know when you find more than a dozen economists who agree on anything. Most can't find their penis with both hands and an grade-school anatomy book.

There, Rita Mae, I remembered today.

[lulu]

I am in on all counts. But, I would like to see what happens AFTER that person is elected. Look at when people have all that monetary power. I suggest that if the country is not doing significantly better in a couple of years, we have the option of electing someone else and you do not get a pension if you fail. It would be running the country like a company and look at what has happened to all those CEOs with golden parachutes.

[TxKent]

Maybe I've been watching too much Spongebob with my kidlet, but the first thing that popped into my head was "ALL HAIL PLANKTON!"

[jeff]

I'm in. I'm especially in if you do make it a party and head it up. Seriously, run for president.

[jeff]

I'm in. I'm especially in if you do make it a party and head it up. Seriously, run for president.

[Bri]

[The Economics Party would not have an opinion on trivial things, such as whether owning a bicycle is bad economics. -- Scott]

Maybe the conservative wing of the Economic Party would not take positions on such “trivial” things, but I can assure you that the liberal wing of the Economic Party would indeed take positions on such topics.

[jeff]

John H. wrote:

"The legalization of marijuana would ultimately lead to a severe drop in productivity."

I don't think anyone is advocating bringing it to work. Or are you suggesting the wicked weed will take hold of the population and leer them into permanent high? It's just an alternate to alcohol. People who are anti-pot make me laugh. It like a dangers of drug addiction lecture from my great uncle between swigs of his scotch.

[mr_poopyhead]

there's just one problem with your plan...

a lot of people would have to VOTE the economics party into power. and it seems that you've convinced everyone who reads this blog that voting is a BAD idea.

so now your only option is a violent and bloody coup. good luck...

[dipy911]

Just give everyone a $600 rebate taken from us rich. This makes SOOOO much more sense than a gas tax. :)

NOT!!!

[CmdrSeu]

Your proposed party overlooks one of the basic tenets that I learned in Econ 101. For every economist there is an equal and opposite economist. Therefore the party would end up looking very similar to Democrats:

Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans. ~ Will Rogers

[Zoe]

im so joining!

[Matt Genkin]

How do you join?

[Dave]

Letting people keep the money they earn is "pandering" ?

You're adorable!

[Dio]

Great, so economists would run the country. You could say that we would follow their every word but then why bother with the whole project?

[JD]

Zardoz wrote: **Incredible source of tax income (costs next to nothing to grow, sells for $500+/ounce)

You miss one big point. It costs a lot now ONLY BECAUSE it is illegal. Legalize it, and it would cost about the same as tobacco before (taxes.)

[Courtney]

I'm in, but only if you come up with a trendier name.

[May]

"I think that proves both of them are unqualified to be president"

Hear! Hear!

[LA Clay]

Where does "God" fit in economically? Does the party support the richer religions for prosperity or the poorer ones for the humanitarian factor?

[Liron]

Hey Scott, I think you make a great point that the best policy decisions are often the ones which help the economy in the long term, both because the economy is important, and conversely because idiotic policy decisions do seem to have a way of screwing us over financially.

Of course, you have to define what "good for the economy" means, so there are still plenty of controversies to settle even if you accept the premise of the economic party.

[Dan]

Why limit yourself to listening to economists. Why not make it a broader initiative and pledge to listen to relent experts in every field. Lets listen to doctors on health issues, ecologists/environmentalists (the non-crazy kind) for environmental issues and so on.

Why not simply create a pro-logic and science party.

[jim]

Fuck no!

Economics may be a big part in what we need from a president, but it isn't everything. Its like deciding who wants to be president based on their stand on the death penalty.

And like you could get two economists to agree on anything!

[Susan]

I'm in. This sounds like it would restore REASON to politics and government.

[Slap D. Monkey]

You want theories? Here's one way off topic. When you are planning an attack, one way to start is by testing the other side's reactions and using that information to develop a model for predicting reactions to other escalated types of attacks. This way you can test various plans and see which has the greatest chance of success.

My theory is that China is preparing to try to take over the US. They are still probing, but eventually they will have enough data to plan a major offensive. They began probing a few years ago by supplying toys with lead paint. Then it was tainted seafood (shrimp if I remember correctly). Now it's pharmaceuticals.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed-heparin-hearing-baxter-capr30,0,5848024.story

Once they have enough data on how the US responds to various types of minor attacks, they will plan a major one. Then it's Tora! Tora! Tora! time (yes, I know that's Japanese, but you get my point).

[BJ]

{For example, if a natural disaster hits a poor part of the country, it might be cheaper to let everyone die}

You mean this isn't already our policy? But Brownie did such a good job!

[Crazycardfreak]

I'm in! Sounds completely plausible, but highly unlikley nonetheless

[Weilong Wang]

Currently, our most popular schools of political thought in this country boil down to this:

Liberal - Regulate the Economy
Conservative - Regulate Everything Except the Economy
Libertarian - Regulate Nothing

Rather than let adherence to an ideology guide our policy decisions, wouldn't it be grand if we could weigh the costs and benefits, and actually choose the best options?

I'm in!

[Bobbie]

Trouble is you make too much sense. I think that means, it's doomed to failure.

[AC]

Economists only use data and logic to reach their conclusions?

*nods* Ok.

I guess I can trust all those financial analysts to help me pick stocks because after all they don't let personal feelings get in the way.
I can trust news reports to be unbiased in their reporting because after all they can put aside their viewpoints.

You are being a bit naive, Mr. Adams.

[Brian Jarvis]

Like WC, I wouldn't belong to any party that would have me as a member.

[Captain]

I'm in.

[BeerBaron]

(For all the posters who ae somehow unaware of it and keep asking, marijuana is the largest cash crop in america (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017). bigger than corn, soy, what have you. Now imagine all of that revenue, instead of going to black-market, tax-free accounts, goes to useful things. If cigarette taxes and booze taxes raise an assload of revenue (they do, in case anyone was unclear on that) imagine adding a third revenue stream equivalent to other 'sin taxes'. More revenue for useful stuff without changing anyone's spending habits...Are we learning yet???)

[Eric]

How would a party member answer the following question:

"To what degree should the government protect people from themselves?"

I believe that the government should not be in the business of protecting people from their own stupid choices. It should, however, be in the business of providing unbiased information and statistics showing the results of various choices. You want to not wear a helmet, fine, just don't make the taxpayers pay to keep you alive in a vegetative state for 50 years after you crash.

The government should also be in the business of protecting people from the poor decisions of OTHER people. So, if you're going to legalize drugs, make sure that you can keep stoned people from driving, and make sure they can support an addiction without turning to crime.

Oh, and universal legalizing of abortions it out too: there is no reason that the baby should be executed for no other reason than the parents made a poor choice.

[BeerBaron]

Yeah Scott, I'm in. Thought I was the only one who was aware that economics existed before, during, and after election season...

The only problem: it relies on the majority of sheeple out there to use.... common sense. As long as I'm dreaming, I'd really dig a Ferrari....

[aahhrrgg]

You'd still have to get elected. And for anyone to vote for your party they'd have to have a minimum degree of analytical ability. Judging from the number of people who vote republican, believe in creationism or thought 'freedom fries' was a good idea, it just ain't gonna happen.

[jeff]

Paintballer wrote:

"My biggest issue with this idea is your reasoning that every political decision should boil down to monetary cost. I think that is one of the worst attitudes our country has at the moment"

Really? Your country being the great USA? The one that has occupied Iraq for 5 years and Lord knows, how many trillions of dollars? Yeah, that one seems steeped in monetary logic. Gimme the cost benefit on that one... The fact is, the great US of A ain't so great these days. Teedering on recession and, IMHO, about to freefall.

[mitchki]

I would add to "repair our decaying infrastructure" You know, invest in the transportation and communication infrastructure.

Other than that, I like your platform.

[Janet]

I agree with all 8. Count me in!

[Zardoz]

Count me in. Twice.

Just imagine the economic benefits of legal pot:
**Incredible source of tax income (costs next to nothing to grow, sells for $500+/ounce)

**Huge reduction in the number of prison inmates (at $30K/year for each inmate) leaving room in prison for REAL criminals

**Police and Feds free to investigate REAL crime (ever get your car or purse stolen? Cops will tell you they just don't have time to worry about it; too bad, so sad)

**Huge source of revenue for the bad guys taken away (gangs & other organized crime)

[Liza Lynne]

Marijuana does not cause cancer. The active ingredient THC actually prevents cancer. Do the research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3561686.stm
In addition, the studies linking it to schizophrenia have failed to prove a cause/effect relationship. Even articles saying marijuana causes schizophrenia admit to this buried in the article. (paragraphs 11 & 12)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4486548.stm
And for those of you who don't realize the economic benefits of legalizing marijuana, have you been under a cave for the last decade? Start at www.prohibitoncost.org.
Finally, if Marijuana were legalized, hemp would also be legalized and guess what you can make with hemp, BIOFUEL! Without petroleum based fertilizer. It will actually grow on land that has been stripped of nutrients and adds nitrogen back to the soil.
I am so sick of stupid uninformed people thinking they are so smart just because they don't smoke weed.
Educate yourselves people. The government has been selling you a lie for 80 years.
http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

[Almost Lucid (Brad)]

Not just yeah, but hell yeah. That's how I'm making most of my decisions already... which is hard because everyone sucks.

[Dobie Gillis]

The idea was already promoted . . . by Jonathan Swift.

Every good thing in civilization's history has come from NOT treating humans as means to ends. Thanks for reversing the trend.

[RSaunders]

Even if you and me voted this way, would it really help? No.

You need to read your response to the "You'd always vote Libertarian and lose" comment.

If you want to pick a candidate that can win, you can't pick a candidate with sound economic policies. Consider the following contest:
Candidates A and B agree to:
- Withdraw from Iraq
- More aggressive energy policy (back off on ethanol)
- More sane tax policies
- Keep abortion legal

Then Candidate A favors a gas tax transfer where evil oil companies pay the gas tax and Candidate B says this is hog wash.

The economics party picks "B" and all the inDUHviduals pick "A". In order to win, you have to like stupid pandering because most voters respond favorably to stupid pandering. ARRGGH.

The same sort of thing gets you in trouble with most of the political points of the Economists Party:
- Limited government
- Legalize doctor assisted suicide
- Strong education policy
- Decriminalize marijuana

Most people think that government can do magic. This think that if they could only get the government to fight a war on drugs then there would be less drugs. Your economists would know that's not how supply and demand work, and you'd pick the loser every time.

[Fuzznsmoo]

Show me the money! I was amazed at someone the other day who seemed to think you were a commie pinko lefty.

[Boozle]

Why even have a political party? Wouldn't it be better to simply have a council of economists whose membership included a large number of well known non-partisan economists. When they were in near consensus on an issue they could simply issue a statement roasting the dumb ideas in a coherent way (... like I don't know a holiday on the gas tax...).

Also to all the dumb arguments that this is a bad idea because reducing every issue to be about money is wrong: Economics is not really concerned about money... its concerned about welfare (money is just sometimes used as a proxy) so an economist studying something like abortion is not simply going to think about the lost productivity vs. costs of raising an unwanted child... that would be dumb... he/she might however discount silly religious arguments... eternity in hellfire is too difficult to integrate.

[bubba]

You just described a totalitarian state. "For the Greater Good!"

[Ron Paul]

Sounds like me! Ron Paul

[Yuriy]

[We’d make some exceptions for humanitarian reasons. For example, if a natural disaster hits a poor part of the country, it might be cheaper to let everyone die, but you have to put life ahead of money at some point]

Lots of people will say the same regarding abortion/assisted suicide. Others will decide to draw the line for drugs/security/gay marriage/etc. So sorry, but it would fall apart.

[John H.]

If most economists were so great at their jobs, they'd be wealthy.

It would be hypocritical for a party that supports abortion and assisted suicide on purely economic grounds to put life ahead of money at any point.

The legalization of marijuana would ultimately lead to a severe drop in productivity.

[Brad K.]

There was a wide difference of economic advice, between what was heard in President Carter's administration, and during Pres. Reagan's first term. The former led to runaway inflation, the latter took decades to control the beast.

As long as the Economic Party sticks to economic fundamental truths and concepts, I think it makes a great deal of sense.

Instead of raising minimum wage (i.e., tax revenue), how about a reverse-graduated levy on employers, say *25% of the employer-paid tax on employee wages for employees under 1 full calendar year of employment, scaled down to -40% for employees over 35 years longevity. Try to convince employers to retain and retrain employee problems, rather than casting the employee aside as 'damaged'. Also, 1 penny tax, per employee, per day, per mile distance lived from work. Perhaps apply on a daily basis only to miles the employee operated a motor vehicle to commute. Encourage employees to live close to work, increase awareness of employees with long commutes, increase company awareness of employee use of van-pooling, car-pooling, and public transportation.

And collect $1 from every political campaign or non-profit organizations that calls one phone on the national no-call list. Split the $1 evenly between the general fund and the callee.

[Haz]

An Economics Party would face the same impossible dilemmas that every other political party faces: How do you best benefit the entire population when it is made up of so many polar opposites?

Why is abortion good economic policy? You'd have to do extensive studies proving that the majority of kids who would have been aborted grew up to be non-productive members of society. Maybe we just need better funding/care for orphans? I think a vast majority of children grow up and produce economic value at least equal to, if not far greater than, the cost of their upbringing. If children cost more to raise than they were capable of producing as adults, the entire world would grind to a halt in one generation.

Why is legalizing marijuana good economic policy? It would make it available to a far greater number of people. Sure, you could tax the hell out of it, but maybe that tax money would just shift away from tobacco and alcohol. And what is the economic cost in lost productivity of all the extra time people would then spend sitting around stoned? Or the economic impact to insurance when many of those stoned people inevitably drive around that way and wreck?

Doctor assisted suicide: this would have to be targetted only to a specific demographic, right? Like the terminally ill who cost more to keep alive than let die? Otherwise, people who are productive, but depressed/bored/lazy could have a doctor push the button. Forcing those people to keep living, and therefore, earning a living, is better economic policy.

Is paying higher costs to force top-quality education on people who are inherently lazy a good economic policy? Or people who are genetically predisposed to a low IQ? Perhaps we should offer excellent education only to those who want it and are able to benefit from it. Maybe we could set up some sort of state-funded universities!

[DWH]

Sounds foolhardy and expensive.
No, wait that's the other two parties.
What we need in politics right now is a "Do Nothing Party."I guess we will all get there ,once every city,county,and state declares bankruptcy.

[Allen]

Interesting, but a couple of points:

1. Someone raised the question of how you decide who the "leading economists are." This is important, because there is in fact much disagreement among economists.

2. As you said, humanitarian exceptions must be considered. Who does that? Based on what criteria?

3. Another thing to consider is defense. Most wars cannot be justified on economic grounds, and you can certainly make the argument that it would be economically prudent to withdraw from Iraq. From reading your blog, I imagine you believe we should pull out of Iraq for other reasons as well, though I'm not in agreement with you on this one. Regardless, how do economists decide (even if they all agreed with each other) what is in the nation's best interest in terms of defense? And is it proper for economists to be the ones to make that call?

[PSD`]

Except for the position on killing fetuses, this platform sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul's platform.

[Elizabeth]

while skimming through the comments- It's shocking to read so many people agree with limited government and personal freedom- but are against legalizing doctor assisted suicide, keeping abortion legal, and decriminalizing marijuana. these viewpoints contradict each other.

if you are for limited gov and personal freedom- then you must be for the legalizing doctor assisted suicide, keeping abortion legal, and decriminalizing marijuana. otherwise- you are just fooling yourself. but not others.

[korektphool]

The thing about "elite" parties like this is that membership should be restricted. That is, only open to, say, people with Bachelor degrees or above.

[cvantuss]

Scott,

You are still laboring under the delusion that the voice of the American citizen means jack squat to the powers that be. The money is in control, and it always will be.

signed,

Realist

[Surely U. R. Mad]

The Economics Party, huh? Talk about being marginalized! Ha ha!

[Jeff]

Where do I send my check?

[sam]

Would your party make insurance pay for assited suicide? I mean some one has to pay the doctor for his or her time. If it is the individual I think that would be a little strange, I mean wouldn't it be easier to get in fight with someone or pull a unloaded weapon on some cops? Why not make it interesting, set up fights to the death with death row inmates. If they get killed, well they are going to die any way, but it would be free. And the State/Goverment could make money by airing it on TV. For the most part it might not be interesting, because it could just be old people getting killed, but some of old folks might are pretty tough (which is why they did not die already).

[GreatScott]

If any economist, leading or otherwise, honestly believes that withdrawal from Iraq is the most economic thing to do, then they don't have any long-term sensibilities. If we withdraw from Iraq, in any way except very very gradually, the whole region will be quickly destabilized, a regional war will break out (no doubt about that), and that will most likely lead to some level of world war. Any economist who fails to see that it is much much cheaper to keep the region stable, over having to participate in a long drawn out world war, has no business calling themselves an economist.

[Taudot]

To continue my comment: if an economic model is good enough, probably it should automatically give life (and other, up-to-now called "humanitarian", aspects) a high value. By-hand (but still quantitative) correction may be needed only up to the amount of the imperfectness of the model.

[SoWhy]

Hmm, so if it's cheaper to have people uneducated, your party would support education only for the wealthy?

[Dilbert Fan]

Which kids get the most attention under a Strong Education Policy? Current law says it's those just under the threshold of passing. Should it be the smartest kids, since they'll make the inventions that help everyone else? Should it be the dumbest kids, because it's more important they learn how to make change than for the others to have read one more Shakespeare play?

Answer: Whichever group MY kids are in.

[bcharlet]

I'm IN.

[steve]

Was it Einstein who said," A problem can not be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it"?
Our society needs a new way of looking at ourselves. We keep doing more of the same in hopes of a different and better outcome. Isn't that someone's definition of insanity?
Our society certainly is my definition of insanity. But what the heck do i know?

[Dilbert Fan]

Everyone is in favor of a "more sane tax policy". Everyone defines this as "I pay less, everyone else pays more."

Similarly, everyone is in favor of a strong education policy, but no one can define what that means. Less football, more math? Less math, more theater? More football, more theater, fewer potholes filled? Everyone asserts their way is the strongest.

[ABTechie]

"The economists need a target to evaluate policies against." Good statement Daniel.

Start with a target of liberty. Your mind, your body and your possessions are yours to control not the government's or anybody else's. Then take into consideration Social Order whereby some liberties will have to be restrictied in order to have a liveable society. Be sure to include individualism and self-responsibilty.

It is not the government's job to decide morals. It is the government's job to provide liberty and justice for all.

Paving over the National Forests would anger the people and be bad for the environment. As the environment gets worse, the people get more upset. If the worsening environment affects the health of people or the economy, then GDP would go down. The economists would realize that a healthy environment is good for the GDP. Then they would try for a sustainable relationship between people and the environment.

[Craig]

I'm in!

[Mark]

Can you demonstrate that the consensus of economists has been correct on the majority of issues?

[No, but I can demonstrate that they use data and rational thought to reach conclusions. The alternative is emotion and superstition. Since those are the only options, you have to pick one. -- Scott]

[Erik]

In, in and in.

The first order of business for your party needs to be putting a price on a person's head since that seems to be a central determining factor for the proposed policies. Would you base it on cost of fo