"The best explanation is pretty simple: I only heard straw man arguments in favor of populist policies because virtually everyone finds these straw man arguments pleasantly convincing. Regardless of the merits of the minimum wage, Social Security, and the FDA, economic illiteracy is the reason for their popularity."
This reminded me of a post by John Cochrane many years ago from which my takeaway was that the old (satisfying) Keynesian macroeconomic theories about macroeconomic mechanisms were inconsistent with actual data so Keynesian macro moved to much more unintuitive mechanisms. But no one in policy discussions ever mentions the new mechanisms. They continue to discuss the old (empirically discredited) mechanisms because they are more intuitive.
I feel like the dynamics re. “popular + dumb” versus “smart + niche” versions of the same position are really interesting yet understudied.
In particular, it’s probably common to overestimate how much of one’s own side holds the “smart” version of its position, and that surely has consequences down the line. It probably affects how the position evolves over time as it gains new adherents, and also affects the quality of policy implemented on its behalf.
If there’s work/writing on this beyond the Motte & Bailey essay, I’d welcome any reading recs.
People see, but conformity is a jealous mistress, and people just go along because the turmoil isn't worth it.
Bastiat was a member of the French legislature. I compiled a list of other important economists who were also members of national legislatures, in case anyone care. https://brucebartlett.substack.com/p/professional-economists-who-were
LOVE your use of the subjunctive case (care).
"The best explanation is pretty simple: I only heard straw man arguments in favor of populist policies because virtually everyone finds these straw man arguments pleasantly convincing. Regardless of the merits of the minimum wage, Social Security, and the FDA, economic illiteracy is the reason for their popularity."
This reminded me of a post by John Cochrane many years ago from which my takeaway was that the old (satisfying) Keynesian macroeconomic theories about macroeconomic mechanisms were inconsistent with actual data so Keynesian macro moved to much more unintuitive mechanisms. But no one in policy discussions ever mentions the new mechanisms. They continue to discuss the old (empirically discredited) mechanisms because they are more intuitive.
See the following:
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-vs-old-keynesian-stimulus.html
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2023/08/interest-rates-and-inflation-part-3.html
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2023/12/new-keynesian-models-puzzle-of.html
Very few people can think rigorously. Those who can see things for what they are, and there be monsters. So very few do.
I feel like the dynamics re. “popular + dumb” versus “smart + niche” versions of the same position are really interesting yet understudied.
In particular, it’s probably common to overestimate how much of one’s own side holds the “smart” version of its position, and that surely has consequences down the line. It probably affects how the position evolves over time as it gains new adherents, and also affects the quality of policy implemented on its behalf.
If there’s work/writing on this beyond the Motte & Bailey essay, I’d welcome any reading recs.