Archive for the ‘Economist’ Category

25 Years Later, Is It Still the Hayek Century?

March 24, 2017

Hayek died 25 years ago on 23 March 1992.

David Boaz of Cato Institue pays a tribute:

Hayek lived long enough to see the rise and fall of fascism, national socialism, and Soviet communism. In the years since Hayek’s death economic freedom around the world has been increasing, and liberal values such as human rights, the rule of law, equal freedom under law, and free access to information have spread to new areas. But today liberalism is under challenge from such disparate yet symbiotic ideologies as resurgent leftism, right-wing authoritarian populism, and radical political Islamism. I am optimistic because I think that once people get a taste of freedom and prosperity, they want to keep it. The challenge for Hayekian liberals is to help people understand that freedom and prosperity depend on liberal values, the values explored and defended in his many books and articles.

There is more here

Do economists really ever retire?

March 23, 2017

Bad news, they don’t. Infact their aura and prestige could be even more post retirement.

David Price has a piece:

No doubt there are some economists who retire so they can put their profession in the rear-view mirror. But many, it seems, never truly leave eco­nomics behind. They continue practicing economics long after they’ve nominally retired or taken emeritus status — and even when they eventually stop, the economist’s way of thinking sticks with them.

For some, the compulsion to do economics in retirement takes the form of publishing. Elmus Wicker, 90, a former Rhodes Scholar who retired from Indiana University in 1992, turned to writing and publishing three books for university presses on economic history. Not resting on his laurels, he has drafted a fourth.

“It never occurred to me that retirement meant doing something else,” he says. “And it never occurred to me that maybe I wasn’t still qualified.”

Bruce Yandle retired from Clemson University in 2000, then returned in 2005 to serve for two years as a dean, then retired again for good. But he has maintained an adjunct affiliation with another institution, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where, among other activities, he advises graduate students on their master’s and doctoral theses. “Interaction with young people who are excited about ideas has a contagion associated with it,” he observes. (See also “Interview: Bruce Yandle,” Region Focus, Second Quarter 2011.)

After Leonard Schifrin retired from the College of William and Mary in 1998, he found a lot of work coming his way in his field of health care economics, especially contract research for the federal government and expert-witness work in litigation. “I was busy for eight years traveling and doing interesting things,” he recalls. “That was a lot of fun and really postponed my retirement from being an economist.

All this sounds good for this blog but perhaps not so much for its visitors…Though it is still many years away from retirement….

How three students caused a global crisis in teaching of economics..

February 27, 2017

A superb review of what looks like a must read book titled Econocracy by three students Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins.

n the autumn of 2011, as the world’s financial system lurched from crash to crisis, the authors of this book began, as undergraduates, to study economics. While their lectures took place at the University of Manchester the eurozone was in flames. The students’ first term would last longer than the Greek government. Banks across the west were still on life support. And David Cameron was imposing on Britons year on year of swingeing spending cuts.

Yet the bushfires those teenagers saw raging each night on the news got barely a mention in the seminars they sat through, they say: the biggest economic catastrophe of our times “wasn’t mentioned in our lectures and what we were learning didn’t seem to have any relevance to understanding it”, they write in The Econocracy. “We were memorising and regurgitating abstract economic models for multiple-choice exams.”

Part of this book describes what happened next: how the economic crisis turned into a crisis of economics. It deserves a good account, since the activities of these Manchester students rank among the most startling protest movements of the decade.

After a year of being force-fed irrelevancies, say the students, they formed the Post-Crash Economics Society, with a sympathetic lecturer giving them evening classes on the events and perspectives they weren’t being taught. They lobbied teachers for new modules, and when that didn’t work, they mobilised hundreds of undergraduates to express their disappointment in the influential National Student Survey. The economics department ended up with the lowest score of any at the university: the professors had been told by their pupils that they could do better.

The protests spread to other economics faculties – in Glasgow, Istanbul, Kolkata. Working at speed, students around the world published a joint letter to their professors calling for nothing less than a reformation of their discipline.

Economics has been challenged by would-be reformers before, but never on this scale. What made the difference was the crash of 2008. Students could now argue that their lecturers hadn’t called the biggest economic event of their lifetimes – so their commandments weren’t worth the stone they were carved on. They could also point to the way in which the economic model in the real world was broken and ask why the models they were using had barely changed.


We have moved from one extreme to another:

The Econocracy makes three big arguments. First, economics has shoved its way into all aspects of our public life. Flick through any newspaper and you’ll find it is not enough for mental illness to cause suffering, or for people to enjoy paintings: both must have a specific cost or benefit to GDP. It is as if Gradgrind had set up a boutique consultancy, offering mandatory but spurious quantification for any passing cause.

Second, the economics being pushed is narrow and of recent invention. It sees the economy “as a distinct system that follows a particular, often mechanical logic” and believes this “can be managed using a scientific criteria”. It would not be recognised by Keynes or Marx or Adam Smith

(Third)… By making their discipline all-pervasive, and pretending it is the physics of social science, economists have turned much of our democracy into a no-go zone for the public. This is the authors’ ultimate charge: “We live in a nation divided between a minority who feel they own the language of economics and a majority who don’t.”

This status quo works well for the powerful and wealthy and it will be fiercely defended. As Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn have found, suggest policies that challenge the narrow orthodoxy and you will be branded an economic illiterate – even if they add up. Academics who follow different schools of economic thought are often exiled from the big faculties and journals,

Interesting stuff..

RIP: Prof Kenneth Arrow..

February 22, 2017

Another giant passes away. Prof Kenneth Arrow was a giant of the giants. His work continues to inspire (or mentally harass!) students till date.

Here is a nice obituary.

Want to understand the economy? Don’t study economics!

February 17, 2017

Peter Radford has a hard hitting piece and one has little choice but to agree on most points.

One of the most nervous moments one faces as an economist is when one is crowded by families/friends asking you for suggestions to improve their well-being. After all, this is an impression economists have created over the years that “they are the ones”. The bombard of media has also strengthened the impression when so many economists come before the box to tell us about state of economy/investments and so on. We are seen as these magicians. So it is but natural for people to ask you to improve their well-being.

However, here is irony of it all.  It is one thing to talk on TV about things and completely another when family/friends ask for suggestions. One realises how inadequate economics training has been all these years. If one has any suggestion, it either comes out from work experience (say in financial markets) or plain observing/reading about  things outside of economics (following newspaper for local news). The disconnect between modern economics training and reality is so wide (and continues to widen) that it is perhaps one of the biggest Houdini acts that public continues to believe in power of economics.  The crisis has dented the image for sure but given lack of alternatives economists continue to dominate.

Radford sums this dilemma. Don’t study economics to understand economy:


In a time of great powers and empires, just Europe experienced extraordinary economic growth. How and Why?

February 16, 2017

Prof Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University sums up years of his scholarship in this article.

One of the holy grails of economic history is how and why did Europe experience economic growth in 18th century. Prof Mokyr says there is no one answer:

How and why did the modern world and its unprecedented prosperity begin? Learned tomes by historians, economists, political scientists and other scholars fill many bookshelves with explanations of how and why the process of modern economic growth or ‘the Great Enrichment’ exploded in western Europe in the 18th century. One of the oldest and most persuasive explanations is the long political fragmentation of Europe. For centuries, no ruler had ever been able to unite Europe the way the Mongols and the Mings had united China.

It should be emphasised that Europe’s success was not the result of any inherent superiority of European (much less Christian) culture. It was rather what is known as a classical emergent property, a complex and unintended outcome of simpler interactions on the whole. The modern European economic miracle was the result of contingent institutional outcomes. It was neither designed nor planned. But it happened, and once it began, it generated a self-reinforcing dynamic of economic progress that made knowledge-driven growth both possible and sustainable.

How did this work? In brief, Europe’s political fragmentation spurred productive competition. It meant that European rulers found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans. The economic historian Eric L Jones called this ‘the States system’. The costs of European political division into multiple competing states were substantial: they included almost incessant warfare, protectionism, and other coordination failures. Many scholars now believe, however, that in the long run the benefits of competing states might have been larger than the costs. In particular, the existence of multiple competing states encouraged scientific and technological innovation.

Superb read..

There are so many things which we just take for granted now but were so instrumental back then..

The economist as an expert: a prince, a servant or a citizen?

February 9, 2017

Recently Esther Duflo’s Economist as a plumber speech made huge waves in economic circles. Earlier Keynes had suggested economists to be humble and competent like dentists and also added various qualities for an economist.

However, all these attributes put economists and their craft on a pedestal over other social sciences (0r studies?).

In this  superb post written from the lens of history of economic thought, Alessandro Roncaglia explores this idea of economist as an expert.

The author says we can divide the role as three types:

  • A prince who leads from the front say an economist as a Prime Minister/Finance Minister etc.
  • A servant who makes policies on behalf of the government
  • A citizen who engages with the public writing and debating actively on policy issues.

The author says increasingly economists are seen in the first two categories but they should try and remain in the third one:


Understanding the war on cash (Why, who and problems)?

January 30, 2017

A three essay series by Tony Joseph of Business World. He looks at the various political economy factors behind the digital cash drive. This go digital drive is hardly as rosy as it is presented to the masses. There are several players involved who are using governments to rush/push through policies to make that quick killing.

In the first essay he says:


What are US economists going to do in Trump era?

January 18, 2017

The world of US economists post Trump can be summed in two words – reality check.

Justin Fox has a nice piece summarising the key thoughts and sessions at the annual American Economic Association meeting:


Study economics not to be deceived by clever economists..

January 16, 2017

An interesting comment by Dr Manmohan Singh. More so they coming  at launch of a book on history of economic ideas by Vinay Bharat Ram:

Economics should be studied not to find settled answers to unsettled questions but to warn on how not to be deceived by clever economists, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said quoting economist Joan Robinson. “When we study economics, what is the purpose of the study of the economics? It is not to find settled answers to unsettled questions but to warn us how not to be deceived by clever economists,” Singh said at launch of the book ‘Evolution of Economic Ideas – Smith to Sen and beyond’ by DCM Limited’s Chairman Vinay Bharat Ram.

“When we study economics, our impulse is not the philosopher’s impulse, knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but for the healing that knowledge may have to bring. It is for the heart to suggest our problems, it is for the intellect to solve them. The only purpose of intellect is to be a servant of social sympathies. That gives you one idea of what economics is all about,” Singh said.

This is superb bit of quoting by Dr Singh from history of economic thought.

As students of economics, these ideas/statements should be really well known to us. But it is a pity (or a shame?) that as none of this is taught, we get to read about them so randomly and then ponder/wonder over the words of wisdom….

Crises in economies vs Crisis in Economics…

January 16, 2017

Some interesting links on the topic (HT:Economist’s View Blog)

  • Andy Haldane of Bank of England raised concerns on state of economics. His main idea is econs failed to see the crisis
  • David Miles, former Bank of England official responds saying no such crisis. Most economics models confirmed the crisis.
  • Simon Wren Lewis sums up and says problem is to think economics only means macroeconomics and finance. The other areas of economics like micro, public etc did not face any such crisis.  Moreover, even within the two macro and finance, former mostly excluded the latter. So there is no crisis as such but a case of overlooking the data. He says if there was someone who should have spotted risks it was Bank of England!

Then there is another article by Prof Paola Subacchi of University of Bologna. She hits the nail on its head:

Where do we go from here? While we should appreciate Haldane’s candid admission, apologizing for past mistakes is not enough. Economists, especially those involved in policy debates, need to be held explicitly accountable for their professional behavior. Toward that end, they should bind themselves with a voluntary code of conduct.

Above all, this code should recognize that economics is too complex to be reduced to sound bites and rushed conclusions. Economists should pay closer attention to when and where they offer their views, and to the possible implications of doing so. And they should always disclose their interests, so that proprietary analysis is not mistaken for an independent perspective.

Moreover, economic debates would benefit from more voices. Economics is a vast discipline that comprises researchers and practitioners whose work spans macro and micro perspectives and theoretical and applied approaches. Like any other intellectual discipline, it produces excellent, good, and mediocre output.

But the bulk of this research does not filter into policymaking and decision-making circles, such as finance ministries, central banks, or international institutions. At the commanding heights, economic-policy debates remain dominated by a relatively small group of white men from American universities and think tanks, nearly all of them well-versed devotees of mainstream economics.

The views held by this coterie are disproportionately represented in the mass media, through commentaries and interviews. But fishing for ideas in such a small and shallow pond leads to a circular and complacent debate, and it may encourage lesser-known economists to tailor their research to fit in.

The public deserves – and needs – a marketplace of ideas in which mainstream and heterodox views are afforded equal attention and balanced discussion. To be sure, this will take courage, imagination, and dynamism – particularly on the part of journalists. But a fairer, more pluralistic discussion of economic ideas may be just what economists need as well.

Amen to that.

I mean the whole thing is such a close circuit (or a circus?) that all this crisis talk reads like a joke. As the author says the coterie of world economic policy comes from selected certain schools (read Ivy leagures in North East USA). The majority of coterie first rejects a mega event coming (amidst some opposition), then they decide the crisis is on applauding the minority dissenters and then they together look for the solutions! It is that simple.  They are least impacted by any crisis as they are always deciding the big world game.

Unless we see more broad basing of economics and look at economists minus the usual tags we are not going anywhere. It will just keep going in circles. It is funny how a local economics person is never seen as an expert despite spending so much time in the region and sector. Whereas anyone from the coterie is seen as an expert on all the issues across the world.



India’s economic advisery becoming increasingly politicised and polarised..

January 2, 2017

Economists have gone terribly wrong in recent years. From not figuring the fallout of 2008 crisis to European troubles to Brexit to Trump victory and so on. Name it and most likely the outcome has been opposite of what economists had suggested before or at the time of the event.

In India, things are no different. We keep getting things on GDP, inflation wrong most of the times.

However, another emerging aspect is the huge politicisation and polarisation in debates over Indian economy. Earlier, debates on economic issue were whether you are for or against the policy/decision and so on. Now any such economic discussion has become whether you are for or against the government.

This is best epitomised in the summary of top economists view on demonetisation (link 1 and link 2). The debate has been split into these two camps.


Israel Kirzner Presents the Foundations of Austrian Economics

December 15, 2016

There is so much to learn and figure about economics.

Steven Horowitz points to lectures of Prof Israel Kirzner on Austrian economics.

When people ask me to describe what kind of economist I want to be when I am in my 70s or 80s, I tell them a story about Israel Kirzner. For a number of years, I watched Professor Kirzner give the opening lecture at the Advanced Austrian Economics summer seminar for graduate students at the Foundation for Economic Education. The basic content of the lecture was the same each year, but each one was different in important details. You could tell that Kirzner was, to some degree, unsatisfied with his own presentation the previous year and had tinkered with it to try to make it clearer and more persuasive this time around. The fact that such a brilliant scholar was perpetually self-critical in this way, and that it mattered to him to make it better and get it right, makes him a role model for scholars of all backgrounds.

Just as important, however, was the passion he brought to that talk each year. I knew watching those lectures that he had given a version of this talk hundreds of times over the years to both his own students and audiences across the world. Yet every year, I felt like he was giving it for the first time, mostly because he spoke with such passion and urgency, as if understanding the basics of economics was a task that bore the weight of civilization on its shoulders. And, as he has argued, it in fact does. We should all aspire to the level of intellectual humility and passion that he demonstrated in those lectures.

This should be interesting stuff…

Much of economics is a sham science…

December 12, 2016

Prof. Julie Nelson  slams much of economics as a sham:


India’s Demonetisation: Seigniorage and Cantillon Effects

November 30, 2016

Larry White and Shruti Rajagopalan have a superb piece highlighting the Cantillon effects of demonetisation.

The Cantillon effects are named after 18th Century economist Richard Cantillon. But then who reads history or cares for it. Under this, monetary policy transfers the purchasing power from those having old notes to those who get the new notes. This will lead to disproportionate rise in prices among different goods in an economy:


Saving the world from econocracy…

November 28, 2016

Three students Joe Earle, Cahal Moran and Zach Ward-Perkins have written this book – The Econocracy. They say we need to save the world from too much of economic advice and frameworks.

Mark Buchanan of Bloomberg endorses the book:


India’s 2016 Demonetisation: Quoting John Stuart Mill and lessons from Milton Friedman….

November 25, 2016

Milton Friedman’s one of the most famous and widely read papers is – The Role of Monetray Policy , American Economic Review, March 1967. Each time you read it, you learn something new.

In the paper, he quotes John Stuart Mill (page 12):

My own studies of monetary history have made me extremely sympathetic to the oft-quoted, much reviled, and as widely misunderstood, comment by John Stuart Mill.

“There cannot . .. ,” he wrote, “be intrinsically a more insignificant thing, in the economy of society, than money; except in the character of a contrivance for sparing time and labour. It is a machine for doing quickly and commodiously, what would be done, though less quickly and commodiously, without it: and like many other kinds of machinery, it only exerts a distinct and independent influence of its own when it gets out of order” [7, p. 488].

True, money is only a machine, but it is an extraordinarily efficient machine. Without it, we could not have begun to attain the astounding growth in output and level of living we have experienced in the past two centuries-any more than we could have done so without those other marvelous machines that dot our countryside and enable us, for the most part, simply to do more efficiently what could be done without them at much greater cost in labor.

But money has one feature that these other machines do not share. Because it is so pervasive, when it gets out of order, it throws a monkey wrench into the operation of all the other machines. The Great Contraction is the most dramatic example but not the only one. Every other major contraction in this country has been either produced by monetary disorder or greatly exacerbated by monetary disorder. Every major inflation has been produced by monetary expansion-mostly to meet the overriding demands of war which have forced the creation of money to supplement explicit taxation.

The first and most important lesson that history teaches about what monetary policy can do-and it is a lesson of the most profound importance-is that monetary policy can prevent money itself from being a major source of economic disturbance……

The words are just so profound. They sum up monetary history and experiments across world and across time in very few words.

There is a reason why history of India’s demonetisation tells us the reluctance of Indian central bank of going ahead with the move. There is a reason very few central banks and countries have gone ahead with the move at the first place.

Infact, why go far in monetary history. Just see today’s world economy. Its major source of instability is the monetary policy conducted by central banks which has made money a major source of economic disturbance.

The anti-cash movement rising across world and its unrealised wide implications..

November 25, 2016

Joseph Salerno of Mises Institute has been warning us against the rising anti cash movement across the world.

In an earlier talk Salerno tells us how these are just attempts by the State to ensure you are always under their radar.

Governments, at least modern western governments, have always hated cash transactions. Cash is private, and cash is hard to tax. So politicians trump up phony reasons like drug trafficking and money laundering to win support for bad laws like the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which makes even small cash transactions potentially reportable to the Feds.

Today cash is under attack like never before. Ultra low interest rates are the norm for commercial bank accounts. In Europe, as the ECB ventures into negative nominal interest rates, certain banks threaten to charge customers for depositing cash. Meanwhile, certain European bonds now pay negative yields, effectively turning them into insurance products rather than financial assets. And some economists now call for the outright abolition of cash, which shows just how far some will go in their crazed belief that economic prosperity can be commanded by forcing us to spend rather than save.

The War on Cash is real, and it will intensify. Here to explain is Dr. Joe Salerno, who spoke on the subject at our recent Mises Circle event in Stamford, Connecticut.

In this piece, Ryan McMaken sums up the talk:

As Joseph Salerno has observed, the elimination of physical cash makes it easier for the state to keep track of private persons, and it assists central banks in efforts to punish saving and expand the money supply by implementing negative interest rate schemes. 

A third advantage of the elimination of physical cash would be to more easily control people and potential dissidents through the freezing of their bank accounts.

Joseph Salerno further points that post-India, there is a similar movement in Australia as well:

The global war on cash is remarkably well coordinated. Less than a week after the Indian government announced it was withdrawing its two highest denomination currency notes (equivalent to about $15.00 and $7.50, respectively) from circulation, the Anti-Cash Axis, which comprises a witch’s brew of national governments, establishment media outlets, international bureaucracies and, especially, gigantic multinational banks, has launched a concerted attack on Australia. Two days ago, Citibank announced that it was going cashless at some of its Australian bank branches.

Yesterday, Swiss giant UBS called for the elimination of the Australian $100 and $50 bills because it would be “good for the economy and good for the banks.” The Australian government in cahoots with the media prepared the way for these brazenly self-serving antics by two of the largest banks to have failed and been bailed our during the financial crisis. Back in February a leading Sydney newspaper published a series of articles, some authored by officials from Australia’s Treasury Department, suggesting that abolishing cash would “save billions” and that  “a cashless society is the next step for the Australian dollar.” 

I have a better proposal for our brothers and sisters Down Under: don’t acquiesce in the elimination of your cash; eliminate the banks by immediately reclaiming all your cash that is “on deposit” at these institutions that cannot exist without government guarantees and bailouts.  

What is interesting to see across are huge double standards across the globe. We are hardly seeing a natural evolution towards e-payments.

There is this supposed crony capitalism where these large banks/payment providers are using Governments to push people towards their products. Then these very large corporate/financial players along with these e-payment providers build a story that how these things are about development of markets and making them efficient!

Part of the blame is on economics education as well. Earlier history of money was known to most students. Now we hardly discuss about historic evolution of money and State’s deep interest and manipulation in the matters of money. The way we have moved from commodity money to fiat money and all fiat money declared as legal tender with very little State accountability is a fascinating tale untold. And now this jump towards plastic money which gives State powers to monitor you as well. What better?

It is shocking that earlier most economists would have raised questions on this State involvement in monetary matters. Now most are backing it!

The Rebel Economist Who Blew Up Macroeconomics..Paul Romer

November 23, 2016

A nice profile of Paul Romer and his recent mission to blow up macroeconomics:

Paul Romer says he really hadn’t planned to trash macroeconomics as a math-obsessed pseudoscience. Or infuriate countless colleagues. It just sort of happened.

His intention actually had been to write a paper that would celebrate advances in the understanding of what drives economic growth. But when he sat down to write it in the months before taking over as the World Bank’s chief economist, Romer quickly found his heart wasn’t in it. The world economy wasn’t growing much anyway; and the math that many colleagues were using to model it seemed unrealistic. He watched a documentary about the Church of Scientology, and was struck by how groupthink can operate.

So, Romer said in an interview at the Bank’s Washington headquarters, “I just thought, OK, I’m going to say what I think. I don’t know if I’m the right person, but no one else is going to say it. So I said it.”

The upshot was “The Trouble With Macroeconomics,” a scathing critique that landed among Romer’s peers like a grenade. In a time of febrile politics, with anti-establishment revolts breaking out everywhere, faith in economists was already ebbing: They got blamed for failing to see the Great Recession coming and, later, to suggest effective remedies. Then, along came one of the leading practitioners of his generation, to say that the skeptics were onto something.

Economists are partly responsible for US President-elect Trump’s victory

November 22, 2016

Dani Rodrik who has been warning on the uneven outcomes of trade liberalisation for a while just blasts economists in this piece. Years of hubris and imperialism is finally getting to the den of American economics. First the global financial crisis and now the recent US elections.

He says we always think those who speak for trade are angels and those against are these barbarians at the gate:

Are economists partly responsible for Donald Trump’s shocking victory in the US presidential election? Even if they may not have stopped Trump, economists would have had a greater impact on the public debate had they stuck closer to their discipline’s teaching, instead of siding with globalization’s cheerleaders.

As my book Has Globalization Gone Too Far? went to press nearly two decades ago, I approached a well-known economist to ask him if he would provide an endorsement for the back cover. I claimed in the book that, in the absence of a more concerted government response, too much globalization would deepen societal cleavages, exacerbate distributional problems, and undermine domestic social bargains – arguments that have become conventional wisdom since.

The economist demurred. He said he didn’t really disagree with any of the analysis, but worried that my book would provide “ammunition for the barbarians.” Protectionists would latch on to the book’s arguments about the downsides of globalization to provide cover for their narrow, selfish agenda.

It’s a reaction I still get from my fellow economists. One of them will hesitantly raise his hand following a talk and ask: Don’t you worry that your arguments will be abused and serve the demagogues and populists you are decrying?

There is always a risk that our arguments will be hijacked in the public debate by those with whom we disagree. But I have never understood why many economists believe this implies we should skew our argument about trade in one particular direction. The implicit premise seems to be that there are barbarians on only one side of the trade debate. Apparently, those who complain about World Trade Organization rules or trade agreements are awful protectionists, while those who support them are always on the side of the angels.

In truth, many trade enthusiasts are no less motivated by their own narrow, selfish agendas. The pharmaceutical firms pursuing tougher patent rules, the banks pushing for unfettered access to foreign markets, or the multinationals seeking special arbitration tribunals have no greater regard for the public interest than the protectionists do. So when economists shade their arguments, they effectively favor one set of barbarians over another.

Well, the problem with economics is removal of history and political thought. Trade supporters often quote Adam Smith to support their ideas but forget how Smith was mindful of politics around the ideas.

The seeds of elitism were sown long ago and now is the time to reap the fruits…