
Economics: The User's Guide by Ha-Joon Chang - tosh
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/29/economics-the-users-guide-ha-joon-chang-review
======
koube
Chang seems to be conflating two visions of economics: one vision of economics
that says how things are, and one vision that says how things should be.
There's a lot of overlap, of course, but one is economic theory and one is
political theory. In the former, there are well studied areas of economics
where we have consensus for cause and effect[0][1][2][3]. To just point to
areas of disagreement and say the whole field is bad reminds of those who
point to disagreement on abiogenesis and say evolution is wrong. Not to say
that agreement indicates correctness, but disagreement doesn't indicate that
everyone doing research is wrong.

The article's other problem with economics seems to be that it assumes people
are unfeeling, which is a fair criticism but not one that is particularly new.
There is a field called Behavioral Economics which tries to address this and
is on the radar of pretty much every economist[4].

The problem I think is more that economics never reaches people directly but
is filtered through politics. I was reading on Bradford DeLong's blog the
story of Mankiw, who is a respected economist but worked for the Bush
administration, where he felt he had to be silent about incorrect economic
theory but he could influence them in small ways to be better on economics,
effectively trading truth and reputation for a small amount of power[5].

[0]: [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-
tariffs](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/steel-and-aluminum-tariffs)

[1]: [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/supplemental-
nutritional-a...](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/supplemental-nutritional-
assistance-program)

[2]: [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/missing-productivity-
growt...](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/missing-productivity-growth)

[3]:
[http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/immigration](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/immigration)

[4]: [http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/behavioral-
economics-2](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/behavioral-economics-2)

[5]: [http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/07/hoisted-from-
the-2007...](http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/07/hoisted-from-
the-2007-archives-the-incredulity-of-jared-bernstein-and-myself.html)

~~~
neilwilson
We don't have consensus for cause and effect at all. What we have is a well
established groupthink trying desperately to maintain its view and its power.
The 2008 crash threw all of it up in the air. I'd recommend reading debunking
economics to see the heterodox viewpoint. Essentially there is no value free
economics. That a marketing pitch for a set of values. There is only political
economy.

~~~
astine
Economics is an evolving field of study like any other. There are many
different schools of thought even within the 'mainstream' position. Using
disagreements and changes within the field as an argument that the entire
field is flawed is what climate change deniers use when they want to dismiss
evidence of climate change. There is room for disagreement on policy without
dismissal of the entire field.

Besides, which heterodox viewpoint are you going to argue for? The Marxist?
Austrian? Both of these are more clearly 'marketing pitches for a set values'
than 'mainstream' economics. If an excessive emphasis on the free market is a
pet-peeve of yours then you certainly don't want the latter.

~~~
f00_
it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were. by the
arguments of market fundamentalists/etc you'd think they think economics is a
deductive science

part of his whole thing is that economics isn't something too complicated for
the average person to understand. too much mathiness and touted as an absolute
certain science

>The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right
and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed,
the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be
quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some
defunct economist.

~~~
j88439h84
> it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were

Can you explain the difference between an "exact science" and the other thing?

~~~
mcrad
Real science involves experiments and therefore proof of causality.

~~~
koube
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics)

Which is a moot point because science is done without controlled experiments
all of the time, e.g. astrophysics, epidemiology, sociology. One of the most
famous cases in medicine is the connection of drinking water to cholera
discovered using observation to connect deaths to a nearby well.

~~~
mcrad
Well it’s great that they do more than just design experiments and hack
p-vales all day;) Geez, had no idea it was such a controversial statement.
What do you want to say, every application of math or coding counts as
science?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science)

~~~
koube
Whether something is a "real science" is based on whether or not science is
done, not the difficulty of the subject matter. Spending so much time trying
to narrowly semanticize science in a way that specifically excludes economics
is navel gazing. The purpose of these discussions seems to be to discredit
economics and discount it's predictive power by defining it as not-science,
but predictive power doesn't come from the definition of the word science, it
comes from the statistical methods that science uses.

Does it involve research? Does the research produce models with predictive
power? Ok, let's use it, just like every policy maker in the world pre-2016.

------
drej
Please add (2014) to the title.

As for the book - read it a while ago, it's very good. That's coming from
someone who actually trained to be an economist before reading it.

------
rossdavidh
I read (and liked!) Ha-Joon Chang's book (which was not the first of his I'd
read); my only quip is with his physics. In fact, there are a lot of cases in
physics where we have to do something similar to his recommendation for
economics. Quantum physics, relativity, the electron as particle or wave,
Newtonian physics, are all different (and mostly contradictory) models for
physics. We pick the one that works best for the problem we're working on. We
don't use relativity when we're designing bridges, we don't use quantum
physics either, but we need to know about them and know when we do need to use
them. His recommendation for economics is not so dissimilar.

~~~
rossdavidh
Ugh. "quibble", not "quip". Sorry.

------
mcrad
Put this way. Sophisticated data mining feeding models that forecast the value
of your startup or large customer base.....ain’t science. No amount of ML
icing on the cake is going to make the (economic) forecast more accurate. It’s
good journalism at best.

------
emodendroket
The book sounds good, but the book and the article are from 2014.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
This looks like as good of a dumping ground as any for my pet issue. If you're
interested in economic schools besides Neo-Classical there is a class on
Coursera called _Introduction to Economic Theories._

If you're interested in critiques of contemporary economic thought then I
would say Ha-Joon Chang isn't your best option. I think the thing to do is to
mostly ditch economists as they aren't that great of critics (aside from a few
Post-Keynesians but that's my own personal bias) and look to the philosophers.

Here's a critique by Martha Nussbaum that I find pretty convincing:
[https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...](https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5798&context=uclrev)

Michael Sandel has a video series on INET called _What Money Can 't Buy_ based
off his book. It's easy to watch and it's basically him prodding at some of
the philosophical assumptions made in our usual economic reasoning. I find it
quite good and it does have big name economists like Mankiw on it.

Elizabeth Anderson is good as well and she seems to be more than happy to
appear on libertarian programs.

Here she is on econtalk: [http://www.econtalk.org/elizabeth-anderson-on-
worker-rights-...](http://www.econtalk.org/elizabeth-anderson-on-worker-
rights-and-private-government/)

on Libertarianism.org:

1\. [https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts-
podcast/e...](https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts-
podcast/equality-capabilities-or-equality-outcomes)

2\. [https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/do-
employ...](https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/do-employers-
rules-our-lives)

And with Mike Munger: [http://www.publicsquare.net/2017/11/private-government-
how-e...](http://www.publicsquare.net/2017/11/private-government-how-
employers-rule-our-lives-and-why-we-dont-talk-about-it/)

There's some sociologists that are also critical of the standard economic
reasoning but I don't know enough about that side of the issue to provide any
recommendations.

~~~
emodendroket
Even if we accepted your criticism that economists have a limited ability to
pick apart conventional wisdom, I think it is worthwhile to hear these things
from people steeped in and deeply knowledgeable about the field.

------
majorLift
As an economics major, it's very clear to me who in this thread has received
an education in economics going beyond the freshman level, and who has not.
The giveaway tell is that, much like climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers,
the latter focus on questioning the fundamental methodologies and paradigms of
this field without the contextual knowledge to understand why they came to be
established through overwhelming consensus in the first place. Such idle
complaints do not constitute valid criticism or discourse, but only ignorance.

~~~
Klover
Might you give us your own input then? It would be more useful to those who
have not received an education in economics going beyond the freshman level,
as the others apparently don't need your input.

