October 27, 2004

Transparency  

Yesterday Slate published an informal poll of how its writers and editors plan to vote in the upcoming presidential election. It'd be nice if the rest of the media would follow suit -- it's the responsible move, and it highlights (see Jacob Weisberg's explanation for more on this) the subtle distinction between opinion and bias. I do think, though, that Steven Landsburg should be let go based on his equation of John Edwards with David Duke. (Full disclosure: one out of one writer at locussolus favored eliminating Landsburg even before his obnoxious comment.)

MORE: A reader writes in with more on Landsburg:

[I]t's amazing about Steven Landsburg, the guy has totally lost his mind... I read his book, Armchair Economist a few years ago, and it starts out quite nicely, as a popular science piece on how we can use basic economics to make sense of everyday phenomena... and ends with a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe of a libertarian gone completely crazy (he compares compulsory recycling in his daughter's elementary school to the Nazi policy towards Jews, if I remember correctly). He's a classic example of the "mad economist" phenomenon, taking his economics training and belief in free markets all too far, and it all goes wrong.

Here, too, we have a case of that. Because he believes so much in free trade, the Kerry/Edwards opposition to it takes on the paramount importance to him. So much so that he loses all touch with reality and the relative magnitude of the other things at stake in this election: the economic and political future of this country, world peace, etc.

The central feature of sane economics is realizing what are the tradeoffs at hand, which is something he completely lost track of.

You can read more of Landsburg's "mad economist" shtick at Marginal Revolutions, where he's been a guest blogger for the past week.

AND: Now Baude has cut short his vacation to defend Landsburg.

Comments

Post a comment










Remember personal
information?