Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Wanted: Bad Economics

I have an idea for a book, although I'm not sure if I will write it. The title is "Bad Economics." To write it, I make a large collection of examples of economic errors--get rich quick schemes, news stories, political speeches, et. al. Then explain why they are wrong and in the process teach the relevant principles.

Any opinions on whether it would work? If you like the idea, feel free to contribute examples of bad economics, either as comments to this post or as emails to me. And if you happen to find bits of good economics by non-economists with good economic intuition, send them in too--I'm thinking of a short bit at the end of each chapter labelled "Diamonds from the Dungheap."


At 11:14 PM, May 02, 2006, Blogger Glen Whitman said...

I like it. I have been an avid collector of bad (or misleading) statistics for quite a while, but I haven't been as diligent in collecting examples of bad economics (though I notice them, of course).

The biggest problem I see is that it's hard to get someone "dead to rights." People's economic statements are often incomplete or misleading but not definitively wrong.

One good example: the oral arguments in Gonzales v. Raich (the medical marijuana case). There was an exchange in which Justice Stevens thought a reduction in demand for marijuana should lead to a reduction in its price. See here.

Another possible example: Lots of politicians (and others) say we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by reducing demand; you could probably find dozens of examples just from the last few months. But while reducing demand would reduce our dependence on oil in general, the oil we continued to use would mostly come from the lowest-cost producers, most of whom are foreign. So in some sense we would be more dependent.

At 12:16 AM, May 03, 2006, Blogger earth that was said...

there was a great little book a couple of years back John Paulos called 'A Mathematician Looks at the Newspaper' which gave math inspired comment on all the major sections of an average daily newspaper - news, sports, weather, stock prices, astrology, births/deaths/marriages etc. Maybe a book along these lines 'An Economist Looks at the Newspaper' is a worthy model.

At 3:10 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But while reducing demand would reduce our dependence on oil in general, the oil we continued to use would mostly come from the lowest-cost producers, most of whom are foreign. So in some sense we would be more dependent.

I disagree with this last claim. Our dependency on foreign oil is best described by the price we would pay for oil when all foreign oil is cut off. If our demand for oil is lower, then that price can be expected to be lower. It isn't very relevant what fraction of our oil consumption is from foreign sources in peacetime.

That said, those politicians are completely off base for the simple reason that if we don't consume the oil, China and other countries are going to do it anyway. We'd just be handicapping ourselves in the global economy to no positive effect.

At 4:38 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would love it. Can you include a chapter on why legalizing marijuana would boost our economy; better paper, better clothes, more cigarette taxes, less $ spent on useless drug busts, etc.?

BTW, you may want to specify where comments should be made. Your blog is reproduced on half a dozen RSS feeds.
-- Dagonell (from www.livejournal.com)

At 5:15 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

People seem to like Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy". I'd thought about doing a book about software development called "Worst Practices".

Generally it is a nice format for showing common seductive and misleading ideas, and why they don't work.

At 5:39 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds like a book that could work, though you might have to be careful about the bad examples. If you put in a discussion about why actually voting is an economic mistake, you could get pilloried enough that your book either tanked or zoomed to the bestseller list.

I would love to see a dissection of the statement on the tax forms next to the public funding of political races boxes: "Checking this box will not cause your tax bill to be higher."

At 6:48 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are Americans willing to read such a long book...? :-)

At 6:53 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you seen Dean Baker's "Beat the Press"?


At 7:29 AM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Chris said...

You could probably write an entire series of books based on Sunday Morning Talk Shows.

Sen Durbin: "Isn’t it curious, as you drive around your hometown, that all the prices on all the pumps seem to go up at the same time and come down at the same time?"

or this gem:
Durbin "Am I the only one of your guests here that think that profit taking is a problem? I mean, I understand the basic laws of supply and demand. I understand that if the input costs have gone up, it’s going to reduce your, your profitability."

At 8:32 AM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Mike Hammock said...

I think it's a good idea.

Wilson Mixon wanted to write a book years ago called "Things We Know that Just Ain't So". The basic premise was similar--take ideas that everyone holds as obviously true and show that they are false (or at least questionable). I don't recall all the ideas, but I believe some of them may have been:
-Laissez faire policies were responsible for the Great Depression/We only escaped the Great Depression because of wise economic policy.
-The natural environment is getting worse, making humans less healthy. (Or more generally, "Life was better thirty years ago".)
-Corporations won't build safer products or make workplaces safer for workers unless forced to do so by the government.

There were lots of other ideas, and I could look them up later if you're interested (and if I still have them).

At 8:45 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Third party payer systems, like health "insurance." It distorts the market on both sides. Consumers of health services have no economic incentive to behave in a healthy way; the doctors/hospitals will fix me up. On the other side of the coin, health care providers are only motivated to get the maximum loot they can from the insurance pool. So, charging $1000 for 4 stitches seems reasonable to them. Yes, I was charged $250/stitch for four stitches from the emergency room. Despite my efforts to find out throughout my wait, the hospital couldn't tell me that's how much they were going to charge me prior to doing the work.

My mistake was going to the emergency room and telling them I had insurance. They took my ER $150 co-pay, and my insurance company paid them another $450 for a total of $600 for four stitches that took them all of 15 minutes to perform. But, the hospital didn't feel like they were fairly compensated so they've sent me a bill for the difference, albeit somewhat adjusted.

It's quite a racket they have going on.

At 8:52 AM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Patri Friedman said...

Reminds me of A Mathematician Reads The Newspaper.

At 10:55 AM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I provide you an example of bad environmental science in clothes of "sustainable economic evaluation": http://www.advance-project.org/

They made a relation between Gross aded value of goods and ressource use or polution. Then they rank this so called Sustainable Value-concept to a EU-15 average.

Please write this book! And please publish it in german!

At 11:12 AM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Russell said...

Uh, just about anything Elliot Spitzer does is bad economics. See http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/go-away-elliot.html and
. And there's Barry Schwartz, who thinks that too many choices are bad for people:
Or the Columbia Accident Investigation Board:

At 12:44 PM, May 03, 2006, Blogger sierra said...

I often get a kick out of reading letters to my local paper, especially this one, which demonstrates several fallacies. It would be entertaining even if it didn't cite "Economics 101."

At 1:37 PM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such a book was already written. It might have been more useful if the title was clearer, but instead it was called "Economics in One Lesson."

At 3:01 PM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Daniel said...

I think it's a wonderful idea! Although I'm sure you (and your commentariat) can come up with better examples than I can, I think it's a great idea and I would enjoy reading such a book.

At 5:50 PM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It depends on what you want your book to do. If you want a debunking, it's a great format. If you want to teach "right stuff," it's hard to lead readers to that solely by showing lots of "wrong stuff." It's a bit like defining an elephant by what it's not. (The space of economics isn't, alas, a linear space; so you can't just put up simplex walls until the Right Volume of data emerges.)
Perhaps you might consider a model where each chapter plots a path from "really badly wrong" to "somewhere in the vicinity of right" by meandering through popular ways of being wrong. That's still "pull towards" rather than "push away from", but I imagine it could be very entertaining.
-- perry

At 8:04 PM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Eric H said...

Couldn't you pretty much just work your way through the CFR? That's what the Pentagon would call "target-rich".

Bad Economics doesn't roll off the tongue very well. How about Pseudonomics? Failing Econ 101? Ecocomics?

At 8:21 PM, May 03, 2006, Blogger Matt McIntosh said...

I like this idea. For an example of "diamonds in the dungheap" I would look at the late Jane Jacobs, a non-economist who seemed like she groked the Way of Catallaxy. Paul Graham is a slightly more obscure but nonetheless great example. A more classic example would of course be Bernard de Mandeville, but that might not be what you're looking for.

At 10:31 PM, May 03, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't Steven E. Landsburg do some of this in "The Armchair Economist," in the chapter entitled "Sound and Fury?"

It was very entertaining.

At 2:59 PM, May 04, 2006, Blogger markm said...

I'd thought about doing a book about software development called "Worst Practices". That's been done already. Get The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks. Brooks wrote from his experience as manager of a huge and disastrous IBM operating system project that started in the 1960's, so an update might be in order by now.

At 5:12 PM, May 04, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a great idea!

You could devote a chapter or a whole section of the book to bad economics in Congress. For example, the anti price gouging bill passed by the House on 5/3/06 would provide fertile ground for teaching a lot of good econ principles.

Can I pre-order a copy of the book? :-)

Good luck!

At 12:51 AM, May 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You could rip through some living political philosophers who have grown rich off being ignorant of economics. One who comes to mind G.A. Cohen.

At 9:24 AM, May 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My favorite is: We must institute rent control because we have a housing crisis, and we must not build new housing because that leads to gentrification.

At 2:23 PM, May 05, 2006, Blogger sierra said...

Perry makes a good point. The space we call bad economics is rather chaotic and difficult to visualize, and thus harder to penetrate through exposition. To paraphrase Tolstoy, each fallacy is wrong in its own way. (Still, it would be a fun read.)

At 8:20 PM, May 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi there.

Books on bad economics have been done before, but its definitely worth doing again. After all, peoploe keep embracing new and not so new pyramid schemes.


At 8:27 PM, May 05, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Viz!

So why oh why is voting an economic mistake? It has almost no opportunity cost. If nothing else it is an excercise in participatory theatre with a low admission price. I look at voting as purchasing complaining rights. Wonders of wonders, I even recently participated in a governor election with a miniscule margin of victory. Voting definitely has superior entertainment value compared to buying lotter tickets.


At 5:40 AM, May 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can read a recent french book wrote by Philippe Simonnot, libertarian and professor of economics at the university of Paris X and Versailles. This book relates numerous economic errors in History.

At 10:59 AM, May 07, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bad Economics;
Lawmakers tell FTC to Define Price Gouging

At 12:36 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger MayDay72 said...

Congressman Sabo once said the way to keep Social Security alive was to simply raise the interest rate of treasury bonds.


It seems like it would be easier just to print more money. I'm sure no one's tried that before.

When I find myself a little short on cash I'll add a few zeros behind the ones on my dollar bills with a green felt-tip marker. A one dollar bill becomes a 10 or 100 dollar bill so easily. What's the problem? On special occasions I turn the ones into 1000s.

At 3:29 PM, May 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. The belief that everyone should get as
much formal education as possible. Two strong forces converge here: the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" falacy, and the education establishment's interest in generating demand.

2. Any one of many bad finance columnists. One of the worst is Clifford Pleschette, who writes in the ANG newspapers (Fremont Argus, etc).

At 6:37 AM, September 04, 2008, Blogger red said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 6:51 AM, January 21, 2009, Blogger wow power leveling said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home