I’m sorry, but somewhere between 99.9% and 99.999999% of us are severely underqualified to be making policy recommendations on this particular issue [fixing the financial industry].
I’d say 100% of us, including Barack Obama and Tim Geithner, are severely underqualified on issues like this. The economy is hideously complicated, and government intervention is a blunt instrument. Any complex government intervention here is much more likely to make things worse than to make things better. It’s like trying to fix a computer with a hammer and chisel.
{ 6 comments }
One doesn’t have to be an expert to make valid recommendations or offer legitimate critique, though.
After all, I’m not qualified to do brain surgery, but I’m informed enough to know that severing the corpus callosum isn’t an appropriate action when trying to deal with a clot in the cortex.
That’s a really good analogy. The surgeon is the expert, but he still needs to explain the procedure to his patient and get the patient’s approval because the patient is paying for it and because the patient is the one who will suffer the consequences if something goes wrong.
The main difference is that medicine is a much harder science than economics, and we understand the human body and how it’s affected by medical interventions much better than we understand the economy and how it’s affected by government interventions.
[edit: by "harder" I mean "more rigorous"]
Eric is right. What Obama and Giethner are doing would be the medical equivalent of a doctor saying to his patient, “You couldn’t understand even if I tried to explain it to you. Just sign on the line. ”
Short of the Obama Administration rolling out Hugh Laurie, I’m gonna want a little more than they’re willing to give. Which is ironic as they want me to do most of the giving.
The problem in this situation is that Hugh Laurie could probably convince me to undergo a medical procedure that I don’t understand. That an actor playing a doctor has more credibility with me than the folks running the country is just wrong.
This is a perfect example of why people have principles.
I am against certain things in principle and when I see them in this bill, I can immediately recommend removing them because they violate my principles.
I know it’s a quaint and virtually unknown trait these days.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Drunk with power
I think the more basic problem is that economics (particularly macroeconomics) is a descriptive science like paleontology rather than a predictive one like physics. We do have applied economists: bankers, for example. Unfortunately, bankers, including Tim Geithner, got the financial system into the fix it’s in and have demonstrated rather clearly that they don’t have the foggiest notion of how to get it out.
Applied economics continues to be largely a seat of the pants phenomenon. It isn’t at the state that applied physics was in, say, 1960. It isn’t in the state that applied physics was in 1660.
However, have no fear. I think there’s an old medical apothegm that applies: God (or time) heals the patient, the physician gets the fee. The troubles we’re in will pass in time and whoever’s been at the helm will get credit for steering us through treacherous waters.
Comments on this entry are closed.