Russ Roberts: Why Economists Are Irrelevant
The host of EconTalk and author of Wild Problems says our biggest decisions don't submit to easy cost-benefit analyses.

"I came to realize that economists…tend to focus on things that can be measured," says Russ Roberts, host of the long-running podcast, EconTalk, and author of the new book Wild Problems. "Dignity is hard to measure. A sense of self is hard to measure. Belonging is hard to measure. A feeling of transcendence is hard to measure. Mattering—that you are important, that people look to you. [These sorts of things are] about the life well-lived and they're not about getting the most out of your money. They're not about what the interest rates are next week. And economists truthfully have virtually nothing to say about these things."
Roberts is an economist by training whose great theme over the past 40-plus years has been the fundamental inadequacy of his chosen discipline to really comprehend what matters most to the people it seeks to explain and understand. Wild Problems deals with the decisions that define us—such as whether to marry, whether to have kids, and what kind of work to pursue—that don't yield to anything like easy cost-benefit analyses.
I talk with Roberts about how to navigate the increasing amount of choice most of us have gained over the past 50 years and how to make sense of a world that is richer than ever in material resources but seemingly lacking in deeper meaning. We discuss Roberts' own life, from earning a Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago in the 1970s to starting EconTalk, one of the longest-running podcasts around, to becoming president of Shalem College, a private liberal arts college in Israel, and the central role that religion plays in his life.
Previous Reason interviews with Russ Roberts:
"Why the Middle Class Is Better Off Than You Think," October 31, 2019
"Should You Be Optimistic About America's Future?" April 26, 2018
"Adam Smith's Surprising Guide to Happiness (but Not Wealth)," October 8, 2014
"Why Keynesians Always Get It Wrong (and Most Economists Too)," October 11, 2012
"The Price of Everything," October 23, 2008
"What You Need To Know About the Bailout," October 7, 2008
Today's sponsor:
- Everyday Dose is the coffee alternative I start my days with. It's made from nonpsychedelic mushrooms, collagen, and nootropics that elevate my mood, sharpen my focus, and give me an energy boost, all without the jitters and digestive issues that come with drinking traditional coffee. It tastes great too and is quick and easy to make. Try risk-free, with a 60-day, money-back guarantee by going here now.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
Yes, but what is it worth to you in economics terms to fuck Joe Biden?
There are many people who want to fuck Joe Biden. There is only 1 Joe Biden. Thus, supply and demand dictates that there should be a high price.
social justice demands equitable access to fjb.
Equity access.
Coming into economics (my BS was in physics and didn't take an eco class until Business School), I found it to have an exaggerated view of itself as a natural science. Mico was ok but in actual use (say in pricing it wasn't the complete picture)..but Maco was total bullshit as it was taught (Keynesian). Some concepts were very important like opportunity cost, time value, sunk costs and marginal analysis in my ability to think critically in business over the years but most of it was more ideology. Until I found the Austrian School on my own, my view of macroeconomics was lower than my shoelaces. At this point I don't even view economics as a serious field of study. You can teach the few key concepts in a finance class. The rest really is political opinions.
Perhaps you should have tried an English writing class or two. Maybe learned to proofread. Your overall disgust with economics comes through, but the details are confused.
Nearly all macro is bullshit. The few bits that aren't are grounded in micro. Even monetarism (Friedman's macro school) is deeply flawed. And even the instances of Austrian macro frequently go off the rails.
How to know an economist is wrong: He's making a prediction.
How do you know economists have a sense of humor?
They use decimal places.
(A joke Russ Roberts has repeated at least 50 times on Econtalk.)
Not just irrelevant. Sometimes deadly.
Marx was an economist and his theory proved deadlier than any other doctrine or religion.
Marx was an economist
No, he wasn't. He was a pretentious pseudointellectual misanthrope who was utterly devoid of any understanding of economics.
-jcr
So, just like Krugman then?
And John Maynard Keynes... and, well most of them.
He was actually a decent economist for the time. He problem is that he came up with a disastrous political ideology.
Yes, he was terribly wrong about the labor theory of value. But he didn't invent that, he got it from Adam Smith. We didn't get marginal utility until later. But by that time Marx had done his political ideology shit, and refused to correct the basis of his politics.
So in the end his mistake was politics, not economics.
p.s. Not defending him. Not at all. Hitler was also kind to animals.
If you want to know how useless most economists are and why consider this. Economics as we know it originated with Adam Smith who wrote in the mid 18th Century. It took the field of economics from the mid 18th Century to the mid 20th Century for anyone to notice the concept of the positional good. That is right; it took economists 200 years to realize that people buy things for single purpose of impressing other people. And this discovery was so revolutionary to economists, that Fred Hirsh won a Nobel Prize in economics for noticing it.
how long to ditch the labor theory of pricing?
Jevens, Walras, and Menger. They came up with Marginal Utility simultaneously. The next good has less utility than the last. And from that you can derive the supply and demand curve. And the demand curve always slopes downward.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Fred Hirsh did not win the Nobel Prize in economics (or anything else for that matter).
Other than that, brilliant. :))
The host of EconTalk and author of Wild Problems says our biggest decisions don't submit to easy cost-benefit analyses.
Hmmm... that's what they said about COVID lockdowns when it was asked if destroying the economy and setting children's education back 10 years was worth it.
Well, there is definitely a place for Koch-funded economists who produce rigorous studies confirming what Charles Koch already believed. You know, things like "the only sensible immigration policy is 100% open borders" or "the ideal minimum wage is $0.00 / hour."
#InDefenseOfBillionaires
To be fair, the ideal minimum wage IS $0/hour.
There's an old formulation of mine, that economics is that branch of psychology that thinks it's physics.
Bingo...at least classical physics...you don't want to start to bring in quantum mechanics...ha ha
Sokol did.
Argument from ignorance, no suprise.
Russ Roberts is the man!
It will be irrelevant so long as it gets just about everything wrong. Economists have failed to predict just about every major economic event in U.S. history. Furthermore, it seems that blundering economists in the Fed and U.S. banking system have caused most of the economic disasters experienced over the past 3 decades (or more).
Oh, I don’t know. Economists have predicted 10 of the last three recessions.
Nemo:
You really believe this?
Economists were predicting a "New Economy" right up to the point that the .com bubble burst.
And Greenspan was still telling Congress that the "Economy was fundamentally sound" the week that the U.S. economy collapsed in 2008.
And...
Economics is not a predictive science. It's explanatory. The single largest problem with economics is the assumption that it's predictive.
That doesn't make it useless. The explanatory part explains quite well why central banks are bad.
It can be predictive at the vague rule-of-thumb level (e.g. price controls will lead to shortages), but not so much beyond that.
You try having dignity, belonging, a feeling of transcendence, or live a good life when socialists have turned your country into an economic disaster area.
The job of an economist isn't to predict "interest rates next week", it's to communicate to people the importance of free markets and economic liberty. Nothing. Else.
"belonging"...ughhhh...is that "inclusion"..please no more DIE ideology...
No, belonging has nothing to do with inclusion or left wing politics. Is English not your native language?
"...And economists truthfully have virtually nothing to say about these things."
Lame argument.
Physicists have very little to 'say' about gravity either, but it is a fact with they must deal.
Demand for a good is, similarly, a fact with which economists must deal. Regardless of the driver of that demand, demand exists and now, as any good scientist, it is up to you to predict and test what happens when certain conditions change.
There probably is underlying logic and order to a lot of the things that Roberts says are difficult to measure, but they're undoubtedly complex systems. Complex systems have so many variables and moving pieces that it's impossible to capture them in any sort of model or spreadsheet that makes them sufficiently predictable.
To paraphrase one of his common phrases, "There are three decimal places, it must be accurate! ". His criticism is that some stuff is hard to measure numerically, and much of the profession is unable to think past numbers.
The old elision between precision and accuracy...
I think that the issue is not merely the large number of variables and moving pieces, but the feedback loops which bedevil real-world economic systems. Linear and equilibrium models are fine but don't necessarily represent the real world.
One of the greatest podcasters ever. I've been listening for twenty years now. The most gracious host, who lets his guests speak without speaking over them, and is never ever combative or rude. Even a total idiot like Picketty was treated with respect. And he doesn't do current events but will do current books.
He was the last person to interview Milton Friedman, and it's still well worth listening to those two episodes.
Lately, he’s been straying into guests and topics outside the borders of economics, but who cares — it’s always fascinating and packed with information.
Harry Truman expressed a wish for a one armed economist, so he couldn't say "On the other hand..."
This guy does not understand economics. Dignity? How much cash are you willing to give up to get dignity? If we give you dignity, can we lower your wage?
The comments are a tad better than this guy, but miss the crucial part. The public hates microeconomics, which tells you about budget constraints [they constrain], and loves macroeconomics when it promises a free lunch.
Normal human behavior.
"Dignity? How much cash are you willing to give up to get dignity? If we give you dignity, can we lower your wage?"
You know not what you talk about. This very issue, which you bring up, was discussed on an episode of Econtalk I listened to just yesterday.
Suggest you check out the podcast.
There is something to this. But it is not universally true. Most economists focus on certain things that can be measured but ignore other things that can be measured or even lie about them or cheat on the measurements. It might be more accurate to say that economists focus on things that can be measured using conventional economic measurements, or even using those conventional economic measurements that they find convenient while ignoring the rest. Besides, the author contradicts himself. First he writes about things that “can be measured” and then he changes the subject and starts writing about things that are “hard (or easy) to measure”. What evidence does he produce to support his claims that dignity, a sense of self or belonging are hard to measure? I don’t think they are hard to measure at all. They, or at least reasonable proxies of them, can be easily measured, but not by using conventional economic units of measurement. Rather they can be measured using standard methods of sociology, and once measured, they can be incorporated into a cost-benefit analysis.
Examples of economic frauds: For instance Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart produced deceptive claims about the link between debt and economic growth, based on a murky ideology. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Reinhart#Criticism_and_controversy
On 28 October 2021, the Italian website La Voce [The Voice] published an article by three Italian economists -- relying on official figures from the Italian budget law and the Italian statistical agency -- claiming that non-EU immigrants are net contributors to the Italian economy. At least one of the economists, Massimo Baldrini, is also an editor ("redattore") at La Voce. Il contributo degli immigrati al bilancio pubblico [Immigrants' contribution to the government balance sheet], by Massimo Baldini, Francesca Campomori and Emmanuele Pavolini, La Voce, 28/10/2021
https://www.lavoce.info/archives/90553/il-contributo-degli-immigrati-al-bilancio-pubblico/
a note at the bottom of the table states that Social Security contributions are not included in total revenues (although Social Security expenditure seems to be included in total expenditure, which is a rather unusual difference in treatment of magnitudes that are strictly comparable). However when I added up the items in the revenues column, I discovered to my astonishment that, despite the note at the bottom of the table, the authors had indeed included Social Security contributions in the total revenue amount of € 29.25 billion. If they had left out Social Security contributions in the amount of € 15.4 billion, total revenues would only have amounted to € 13.85 billion, instead of € 29.25 billion. Consequently the pension surplus of €14.4 billion in 2019 is decisive for concluding that non-EU immigrants were net contributors. Without the pension surplus, non-EU immigrants would be a sizable net drain on the economy.
This was a flat-out arithmetical error used to justify major policy decisions. When I wrote to La Voce pointing out the error, my post was promptly deleted.
"Roberts is an economist by training", Aye, there's the nub. The economics taught in American universities are garbage. I attended a PhD programme in economics at CUNY in the 1980s, and the professorss would spout crass neoliberal ideologies like rational market theory, which have been shown to be an utter fraud. A fraud, moreover, than even the Austrian School economists, who are not noted for their perspicacity, have no difficulty in disproving.
I meant "efficient market theory", which is about as scientific as sharia law.
I don't think that the efficient market hypothesis (if that's what you mean) is a neo-liberal theory. It's an nypothesis about asset prices, that's all. I would hesitate to call it a fraud. "Largely wrong" is a better formulation, IMO. Bachelier was a mathematician, not a political theorist.
They all want to be fed chairman, or at least get another cushy government job.