so super Tuesday dawns -- England win at cricket; pancakes for tea (its pancake day - unseasonably early but unlike budding daffodils, premature frogspawn etc not (obviously) a sign of global warming on its way) and the rest of the world gets to watch the US vote. A quick straw poll among my very unrepresentative selection of friends stateside suggests that the Edwards vote (yes, I was tapping into that small but perfectly formed Edwards demographic) is breaking overwhelmingly towards Obama.
The amount of erstwhile Edwards support is quite interesting given that here he is overwhelmingly known for two things -- being a fabulously rich trial lawyer and being the heir to Gephardt style protectionist policies.. this makes him the archetypal beneficiary of voter irrationality as explained by Bryan Caplan Economics Professor from George Mason University who claims that voters get the appalling policies they deserve because they don't think like Economics PhDs -- and the big example of this is (a) support for populist policies like protectionism which reduce economic welfare and (b) that the most successful politicians are lawyers. "To get ahead in politics, leaders need a blend of naive populism and realistic cynicism,. No wonder the modal politician has a law degree.... economic issues are important to voters, but they do not want politicians with economic expertise - especially not ones who lecture them and point out their confusions". So that was why Nigel Lawson was never PM... But at least there are two other lawyers to choose from to become the Democrat nominee....
Still Caplan has some interesting messages for the bureaucrats among us.. since democracy is so flawed by pandering politicians playing to economically illiterate audiences, the good bureaucrat's duty is to subvert policy -- and clever (economically literate) politicians can connive in this as well... so here is the gospel according to Caplan: " if you work at a regulatory bureau, draft legislation, advise politicians, or hold office, figure out how much latitude you possess and use it to make policy better. Subvert bad ideas, and led a helping hand to good ones. .. an economist who, by his efforts, is able to postpone by a week a government program which wastes $ 100m s year has by his action earned his salary for the whole of his life". Not exactly what they teach you at the National School of Government....
so back to the US -- who will win tomorrow? A quick surf on the websites suggested Barack has the better song but Hillary has the better merchandise....but whatever happens, I'm betting on a lawyer....
and for anyone who has made it this far I am feeling ueberbouncy -- well I would be if I could bounce which is tough on crutches.. but apart from that little local difficulty am on top form. But may stay up all night watching the results come in... exciting elections are fun and all too rare.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'd like to read Caplan's book, but mainly because I suspect he falls into the trap that many economists tumble into, namely by defining "rational" as meaning "human behaviour that is consistent with the assumptions simplistic economic theory" - or belief in a super-reductionist 'utility function' underpinning human behaviour.
In contrast, I've just started 'Microtrends' by Mark Penn... he starts by stating his conviction that voters really are quite canny and know what works for them.
On the other hand, maybe people are just really stupid, fearful and superstitious and aided in their self-harm by venal and obsequious politicians. I think only partly true.
CB
I don't know how you can quote the stuff about voters not wanting politicians with economic expertise without a reference to US President Bartlet who was not only an economics professor, but a Nobel Prize Laureate in the subject. He was elected and after four years of his benign and enlightened administration re-elected with an extended majority.
(Oh, hang on, maybe the West Wing is a fairly utopian fiction, rather than a documentary...)
a.
good comments.. on Arik's tempting to cast Obama ?as Matt Santos vs McCain as Alan Alda... but then the quesiton arises on BO -- we know he's cute, we know he's smart but what's he for?
I thought it was a case of life imitating art, but the reality is, of course, more complex:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/barackobama.uselections2008
Post a Comment