Skip to main content

Getting Economists to Vote

The Freakonomics guys summed it up well:

"... voting exacts a cost -- in time, effort, lost productivity -- with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your 'civic duty.' As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, 'A rational individual should abstain from voting.'"
-excerpt from a New York Times article

This is unsettling, because many people consider the economic policies of candidates to be of the utmost importance. (According to the Chosun Ilbo article written on May 4th, 2017, polls revealed that economic growth policy was the most important factor of the 2017 Korean elections, at a rate of 28.5%. Policies regarding job creation came in second place, at 18.8%.) What to do, when the people who allegedly know the most about the economy take no part in shaping it?

Surely, this major problem is difficult to remove without hurting democracy. Perhaps, then, hurting democracy is the best way to solve this problem.

Political disagreements can be divided into two classes. The first class of disagreements regard the economy, and are best answered by the educated. These questions can often be answered objectively. They include:
  • How much should be devoted to R&D? Which companies, universities, startups, or research institutes deserve these funds?
  • What is the most efficient tax rate? Tariffs?
  • Is it fine to use price ceilings and price floors?
  • How many people should be employed by the government?
The other class of questions regard everything else. Questions like "Should drugs be legal?", "Should THAAD be deployed?", or even questions that have to do with dividing the economic pie and have no objective answer, such as "How much should the super rich get taxed?" all belong in this class of questions. These debates should be settled by majority rule.

But when dealing with questions about the economy, only the learned should get to vote. This would drastically reduce the number of potential voters, thus getting each economist's vote to count significantly more. Candidates, in turn, will focus more on societal and international issues, and simply follow the economic policies recommended by the majority of the degree holding community. Democracy gets hurt, but the economy will flourish.

Comments

  1. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 11:47 AM

    I went to vote but told everyone our votes will never count and the winner is always decided before any of our votes, special thanks to Freakonomics guys. Did you vote? ^^ You should've.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem with Measuring Opinion

The problem with studies conducted by gathering opinions is that the measurement system is inherently flawed. Before examining the flaws, take a quick look at a sample Big Five personality test: http://personality-testing.info/printable/big-five-personality-test.pdf This test uses what social scientists call the "Likert scale". Usually, 4 or 5 choices are available, where each choice represents the feelings of the survey taker. The scale should be familiar, though its name might not be. By Nicholas Smithvectorization: Own work - Own work, based on File:Example Likert Scale.jpg Likert scales are useful for simple surveys designed to summarize the general opinion of the public. The problem starts when social scientists try to use Likert scales to conduct statistical research. Obviously, the Likert scale is limited by human irrationality. R espondents might avoid the extremes. They might respond in ways that make themselves look good. They might choose an extreme opin...
1 comment
Read more

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which  rules can be broken, and when? The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken . Here are some examples worth considering. Jaywalking The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross. In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting ...
3 comments
Read more

Compulsory Organ Donations

More than a Nudge Robert Thaler, the soon to be winner of this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote about how organ donation rates can change significantly when the question is asked differently to potential donors . In a nutshell, he differentiates the opt-in and the opt-out method, where the opt-out method gets more people to become donors, because the default choice is to be a donor. But he goes on to mention that the presumed-content law may be upsetting to some people, and that the Illinois system, which "makes one's wishes to be a donor legally binding . . . is a winning combination." Here, Thaler, in his strict adherence to libertarian paternalism, fails to consider a morally and economically superior policy: the policy of mandatory donations. It is not hard to see that mandatory donations are economically superior. To see why mandatory donations are morally superior, one need only consider the trolley problem. Here is the thought exp...
Post a Comment
Read more