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

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

Taxi Incentives

Whether they show it or not, most passengers are suspicious of taxis. This is because there is a conflict of interest: needlessly roundabout routes drive up the taxi's profits, while they cost passengers time and money. Is there a way to line up the incentives of drivers and passengers? The solution is to pay taxis before the ride, not after. The cost would be based on the distance and the traffic situation. This pre-paid method would be better than the current after-pay method for three reasons. First, it would be in the best interest of drivers to take the passenger to his or her destination as soon as possible so that they can quickly find a new customer. Second, because the passenger knows this fact, there would be fewer arguments about the route the drivers take. A driver's mistake in taking a slower path could be mildly annoying for the passenger, but not irritating enough to incite major arguments. Passengers would also trust the drivers more when they claim t...
Post a Comment
Read more