A large majority of mainstream economists that I follow were cautiously optimistic on Millei coming into his presidency.
If you’re going to write off “experts” every time some of them get something wrong you’re holding them to an impossible standard - so of course you hate them.
I think a lot of it comes down to intellectual arrogance on behalf of these economists, and it's something we've seen from "experts" here in the States on a variety of issues. They can't fathom that, without government intervention and guidance, economies can and will flourish.
They believe they need to be in full control and for the masses to lean on them. When they're proven wrong, as they have been here, my biggest fear is that they'll continue to dig their heels into the dirt and still find a way to claim Milei's reforms have been "disastrous." I hope I'm wrong in that regard.
Anyway, here's to hoping Trump (and Musk) continue to identify and ultimately slash the wasteful spending, as they, myself, and many others call it, for good. He's got a lot to learn from Milei.
I’m afraid you are 100% wrong about Thatcher. GB was going bankrupt until Thatcher rescued the economy. They have been going down hill ever since. Today they are close to bankruptcy again.
If pressed to explain these 108 economists inability to forecast Milei's impact, I would explore the collectivist distaste for successful private solutions. This distaste for private solutions stems from a distaste for the individual wealth of ownership. It is tacitly ideological.
In other words, I would explore the bias against individual wealth creation at the top in a market based system. Henderson's essay references these individuals as the "already economically powerful."
This tacit bias clouds their material objectivity. The pretext is that individual wealth creation is a kind of sickness rather than the natural result of an incentive structure.
But it turns out that individual incentives drive efficient behavior and outcomes. Easterly said that “people respond to incentives. When there are no incentives to do the right thing, they usually don't."
And the remedy for bulging individual wealth creation? Progressive taxes for the wealthy. This is how the US government federal (not state) tax system works now. The bottom 50% contribute less that 3% of federal revenue. The top 10% pay the lion's share (71%) of the federal bill. Even Trump (what?) is hinting at raising the top tax rates.
Wealth accumulation makes “everyone else” distrustful, even when it's the result of a successful system of incentives.
The problem is that being a professional economist is itself at odds with economics. There is no reason for governments to consult an economist who always says "don't do anything, leave the market alone" because following his advice gives the same result as not consulting him. Like doctors, economists are only employable to the extent that they recommend interventions, even if that means being wrong.
Very helpful, thanks. For myself, I have never supposed that economics is a science. Science, after all, is based on falsifiable experiments in the real world. But you can't really do that with whole economies. You can just observe what sort of policies seem to help, and what sort of policies seem to hinder, the well-being of people and economies. Personally, I think it's not even just a matter of what works, but of what is morally right for the government to be involved in. It seems to me that the more we look to governments to solve our economic futures, the less essential freedom, strength and resilience we obtain. Just as the more a parent fulfills the needs of their child, the less the child is liable to develop their own skills and ability to survive on their own. But there is clearly a subtle imperative for governments to intrude on economic life, since it helps to make people more dependent on their largesse. And hence, in theory, more pliable to their dictates. This political, as opposed to scientific, dichotomy is at the heart of modern economics.
Who would have thought that a bunch of interventionist keynesian economists, whose salaries and careers depend on their "advicec, would suggest letting free markets run would be successful 🤡🌎
Economists frequently fail in their predictions in a way that physicists, for example, do not. If economics is a science it is anything but exact.
More importantly, its practitioners generally begin with an ideological bias-Piketty for example is a collectivist. He is ideologically opposed to Miley. He wanted Miley to fail and came up with “economic “ reasons why this should be so.
It’s only been one year, it can take decades to feel the effects of bad policy. Look to the UK, only now truly feeling the impacts of Thatcher selling off everything in the 80s. Let’s not praise Milei prematurely, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoronic joke of an ideology.
I haven’t, I’m just personally skeptical of this kind of neoliberal/“anarcho-capitalism” policy so I’m keeping an eye on it now, if it works it’ll definitely be an interesting case study but I think we need to give it more time for the effects of Milei’s policies to really set in.
Argentina started the 20th century in much the same position as the USA. They’ve spent the last 100+ years in debt with sky high inflation, following policies much like those Millei ended. It was time for a change.
https://mises.org/profile/ludwig-von-mises
https://fee.org/ebooks/economics-in-one-lesson
Nothing more needs to be said.
Boom! Mic Drop!
The "expert" class continues to soil themselves. Will it ever end?
A large majority of mainstream economists that I follow were cautiously optimistic on Millei coming into his presidency.
If you’re going to write off “experts” every time some of them get something wrong you’re holding them to an impossible standard - so of course you hate them.
Those 108 economists, even if clutching "lauded" prizes in economics, are merely Ponzi scheme enablers ...
And Milei is doing crypto scams like Vice President Trump, supporters of this will be on the wrong side of history.
They got it wrong because they believe in magic beans and not reality
I think a lot of it comes down to intellectual arrogance on behalf of these economists, and it's something we've seen from "experts" here in the States on a variety of issues. They can't fathom that, without government intervention and guidance, economies can and will flourish.
They believe they need to be in full control and for the masses to lean on them. When they're proven wrong, as they have been here, my biggest fear is that they'll continue to dig their heels into the dirt and still find a way to claim Milei's reforms have been "disastrous." I hope I'm wrong in that regard.
Anyway, here's to hoping Trump (and Musk) continue to identify and ultimately slash the wasteful spending, as they, myself, and many others call it, for good. He's got a lot to learn from Milei.
sweaty right handed bandits
I’m afraid you are 100% wrong about Thatcher. GB was going bankrupt until Thatcher rescued the economy. They have been going down hill ever since. Today they are close to bankruptcy again.
If pressed to explain these 108 economists inability to forecast Milei's impact, I would explore the collectivist distaste for successful private solutions. This distaste for private solutions stems from a distaste for the individual wealth of ownership. It is tacitly ideological.
In other words, I would explore the bias against individual wealth creation at the top in a market based system. Henderson's essay references these individuals as the "already economically powerful."
This tacit bias clouds their material objectivity. The pretext is that individual wealth creation is a kind of sickness rather than the natural result of an incentive structure.
But it turns out that individual incentives drive efficient behavior and outcomes. Easterly said that “people respond to incentives. When there are no incentives to do the right thing, they usually don't."
And the remedy for bulging individual wealth creation? Progressive taxes for the wealthy. This is how the US government federal (not state) tax system works now. The bottom 50% contribute less that 3% of federal revenue. The top 10% pay the lion's share (71%) of the federal bill. Even Trump (what?) is hinting at raising the top tax rates.
Wealth accumulation makes “everyone else” distrustful, even when it's the result of a successful system of incentives.
The problem is that being a professional economist is itself at odds with economics. There is no reason for governments to consult an economist who always says "don't do anything, leave the market alone" because following his advice gives the same result as not consulting him. Like doctors, economists are only employable to the extent that they recommend interventions, even if that means being wrong.
Question: If you dramatically raise tariffs but hold the money supply constant, what’s the effect!
Actual question. Anyone interested in responding?
yes. and no.
Very helpful, thanks. For myself, I have never supposed that economics is a science. Science, after all, is based on falsifiable experiments in the real world. But you can't really do that with whole economies. You can just observe what sort of policies seem to help, and what sort of policies seem to hinder, the well-being of people and economies. Personally, I think it's not even just a matter of what works, but of what is morally right for the government to be involved in. It seems to me that the more we look to governments to solve our economic futures, the less essential freedom, strength and resilience we obtain. Just as the more a parent fulfills the needs of their child, the less the child is liable to develop their own skills and ability to survive on their own. But there is clearly a subtle imperative for governments to intrude on economic life, since it helps to make people more dependent on their largesse. And hence, in theory, more pliable to their dictates. This political, as opposed to scientific, dichotomy is at the heart of modern economics.
Who would have thought that a bunch of interventionist keynesian economists, whose salaries and careers depend on their "advicec, would suggest letting free markets run would be successful 🤡🌎
Economists frequently fail in their predictions in a way that physicists, for example, do not. If economics is a science it is anything but exact.
More importantly, its practitioners generally begin with an ideological bias-Piketty for example is a collectivist. He is ideologically opposed to Miley. He wanted Miley to fail and came up with “economic “ reasons why this should be so.
#TeamChainsaw
It’s only been one year, it can take decades to feel the effects of bad policy. Look to the UK, only now truly feeling the impacts of Thatcher selling off everything in the 80s. Let’s not praise Milei prematurely, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoronic joke of an ideology.
Have you paid attention to the Argentine economy over the last 40 years?
I haven’t, I’m just personally skeptical of this kind of neoliberal/“anarcho-capitalism” policy so I’m keeping an eye on it now, if it works it’ll definitely be an interesting case study but I think we need to give it more time for the effects of Milei’s policies to really set in.
Argentina started the 20th century in much the same position as the USA. They’ve spent the last 100+ years in debt with sky high inflation, following policies much like those Millei ended. It was time for a change.
https://open.spotify.com/track/7kv7zBjMtVf0eIJle2VZxn?si=OqzfdirMSjGV7oi9p4i4Hw