Russ Roberts: Why Economists Suck at Explaining Life
The EconTalk host and Wild Problems author talks about the limits of cost-benefit analyses.
HD DownloadEconomist Russ Roberts is known for his extraordinary gift at finding creative ways of communicating the power of free market capitalism to the general public.
He's the host of the wildly successful podcast, EconTalk, which has been running weekly episodes since 2006. He's the author of three novels and, along with filmmaker John Papola, he created the blockbuster Keynes vs. Hayek rap videos.
More recently, his interest has turned to the fundamental inadequacy of his chosen discipline to comprehend what matters most to people. "I came to realize that economists…tend to focus on things that can be measured," he tells Reason. "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."
Robert's new book is called Wild Problems and it deals with the decisions that define us: whether to marry, whether to have kids, what kind of work to pursue. He says these are the sorts of questions that can't be figured out with economic modeling and cost-benefit analyses.
Reason talked with Roberts about how he makes sense of a world that is richer than ever in material resources and yet suffers increasing numbers of "deaths of despair." We discuss his own life, from earning a Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago in the 1970s to becoming president of Shalem College in Israel to the central role that religion plays in his life.
Photo Credits: Russell Roberts, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Music Credits: "Little Eyes - Instrumental Version," by Yehezkel Raz via Artlist.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Regan Taylor and Adam Czarnecki.
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
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-01] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Russ Robert's?
Okay whos the fucking moron that left their user logged on for an intelligent, nuanced, thoughtful thinker to put something up on reason?
Seriously econtalk is the greatest podcast ever, I can't believe I have been listening to it since 2006
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-04) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Maybe economists suck at explaining life, but they're unbeatable at dreaming up ways to wreck your country for fun and profit.
talks about the limits of cost-benefit analyses.
Dr Fauci agrees. Lock it all down, mandate a vaccine for everyone, regardless of age and infirmity.
Speaking of explaining economics, the WaPo ran an article suggesting that recessions could be financially beneficial . . .
https://notthebee.com/article/look-at-this-actual-wapo-headline-from-today
Where does that put us now on the gaslighting progression?
1. It's not happening.
2. It's happening but it's not that bad.
3. It's happening and here's why it's a good thing. <--you are here
I still remember when my spirit guide, Douglas Murray pointed out that progression of the elite media (in his case he was referring to the European media's way of reporting the 2015 migrant crisis) but once he pointed that out, I can't unsee it.
That, and the ever popular, "5. Shut up racist/transphobe."
That starts at step 0, and continues as a sub-step all the way through the process.
0. Shut up racist/transphobe.
1. It’s not happening, so shut up racist/transphobe.
2. It’s happening but it’s not that bad, so shut up racist/transphobe.
3. It’s happening and here’s why it’s a good thing, so shut up racist/transphobe. <–you are here
6. Eat the bugs.
But recessions are beneficial. In the long term. Recessions allow for bad business models to die and crash. Bernie Madoff was only able to run for so long because of the largesse and continuous profits of the Clinton years. If there had been a major recession earlier, then it would have stopped. The downward parts of the cycle are like winter. It kills the weak and allows everyone to go back strong.
Trying to prevent recessions is not only fighting the inevitable, requiring greater and greater stimuli and making the ensuing recession greater and greater, but it also undermines the long term strength of an economy.
Yes, they stink at the time, but fighting tooth and nail to prevent them only makes matters worse in the long term.
"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."
I'm not sure if they should even try. For instance, I don't want Paul Krugman to tell me out to get more meaning out of my life. I want him to tell me... convince me that printing money forever and ever, amen will make us all richer and lower inflation. If he can't do that, or the evidence shows otherwise, then I want him to STFU.
Next up: Dr. Soh on "Why neurobiologists suck at explaining gender."
Later on: Bjorn Lomborg on "Why physicists suck at explaining renewable energy."
Before signing off tune in for: Dr. Malone on "Why physicians and biochemists suck at explaining vaccines, immunology, and epidemiology."
Don't forget that classic short, "Why wokists suck at explaining grammar".
Yeah, and I think that's very, very important for scientists to talk about as well. Science is very valuable, not least because it has limits about the types of questions it can ask. I think Mr. Roberts would not deny that one though, having listened to him on another podcast.
Question for below. I got logged out, and I saw sarcs comment (it’s usually Grey because reason got better) Am I upchuck?
I always wanted a second place rent free
Russ is a great economist and as libertarian as Stossel.
I hope some people check this out.
But if you're a Trumpian, you know who you are, don't you dare watch this video! You might learn something from an economics professor what a knack for making big ideas make sense from an Austrian (yes that means Hitler) point of view!
So to JesseAz, Canadian Clown, upChuck and the rest... DO NOT CLICK!!!!
Russ is the greatest. Been listening to him since he interviewed Milton Friedman. He keeps me grounded. He is gracious even when interviewing the worst people (ei. Picketty). He's still mostly Chicagoite, but lots of Hayek mixed in. Austrian might be accurate, but he's not at all Mises Caucus flavor of strident purism and he's not focused on Time Preferences like the folks in Auburn seem to be.
He's a bit dry for me, but I've yet to really disagree with him.
He is a master of interviewing. I had a perfect streak of listing to every single Econtalk, until COVID hit and messed it up.
I'm a bit on the fence about his point.
On the one hand, I think he is right that economics has gone down a path of trying to be a "hard science" where everything is empirical and falsifiable with real world observations. And that has probably been a mistake. It is really, really hard to test any economic prediction because it is nearly (or completely) impossible to control variables to the extent you can rely upon any study.
On the other hand, this does not mean the chosen domains of study were wrong. Long ago, math was considered part of "The Sciences", which is why most universities awarded the degree from their science school. Mathematics is an axiomatic science, as opposed to a hard science that follows the scientific method. While the math of geometry is applicable to the real world, it is by itself axiomatic- every single conclusion in geometry True based on assertions that are unprovable (e.g. you cannot "experiment" whether two parallel lines will go on forever without touching). The differences- and the importance- of both disciplines has gotten confused over the 20th century when physics proved uniquely capable of living in both realms (but even then, it was understood that there was a difference between experimental, applied and theoretical physics).
Economics is more of an axiomatic science than an experimental one. Supply and demand, marginal utility, and the law of diminishing returns are all axioms that cannot be proven or disproven. This does not make them worthless, any more than math is worthless. They are abstract concepts that, when studied, allow us to derive principles and further insights that tend to be pretty good (depending on the study) at explaining how individuals interact economically. And I disagree with Roberts' quote that these things are unimportant.
Not everything in life is economics, and yet many, many of the questions that occupy our lives are informed by economics, because it often comes down to economic tradeoffs.
Starts @ 2:25. Pretty short introduction compared to other recent ones.
"Dignity is hard to measure."
How many extra dollars are you willing to get if you give up a bit of your dignity?
Perfectly straightforward measuring problem. Nobody like the questions!
As Milton freeman (russes first guest on econ talk) would say about the scenario where you off a girl $1mil to have sex with you, she says okay, then you offer $100 a s she asked what type of woman you think she is
"we have already established what type of woman you are. now we're just haggling about the price"
Roberts discusses quite often why that is not a straightforward question.
That is a question for the Roundtable. Much personal experience there, I am sure.
That's an easy question for the round table.
"how is your dignity measured"?
"by how many cocktail parties progressives invite me to, and how often Koch pats me on the head and tells me I'm a good boy"
This is an interesting talk and it touches a lot on the stuff I've been listening to from other speakers and thinkers who cover this stuff in much greater depth.
And to be absolutely clear, most of those people that cover this at much greater depth are all NAZIS, misogynists and racists. So... your mileage may vary.
> "I came to realize that economists…tend to focus on things that can be measured"
This is like looking for your lost keys under the corner light post, because the light is better there than over where you lost your keys.
Fun fact, he makes that exact analogy in the interview.
It's a classic joke.
I use the drunk-man-looking-for-keys-under-lamppost analogy in my job fairly often.
It's trivial.
Let me guess: Because human beings are not widgets, and they do not necessarily value maximizing their economic worth above everything else?
"Russ Roberts: Why Economists Suck at Explaining Life"
Same reason physicists suck at explaining life; it's not their area of expertise.
Is there a transcript?