02 Oct 2014

Russ Roberts Has Nothing For Which to Apologize

Economics 17 Comments

Adam Ozimek launches this odd complaint against RR:

He’s an economist who regularly complains that economics is less scientific than it thinks, and says things like he doesn’t think economists really know what much more about the world than we did 50 years ago. But then Russ also has perhaps the best economics podcast in the world where he interviews leading economists about their research. It’s true Russ often provides a voice of skepticism, pushing back and asking hard questions. It’s a great part of the podcast. But the vast majority of the time Russ is clearly having people on because he thinks we can learn from hearing about their research. He’s hardly constantly disagreeing with them like you’d expect if he thought most of what they have done doesn’t tell us anything.

It begs the question, if economists haven’t really learned anything in the last 50 years then why in the world would you spend so much time interviewing economists about their research? Why not interview economic historians about what economists were saying 50 years ago? There is a huge disconnect between Roberts’ intensely skeptical attitude when he makes sweeping statements about the field, and the content of his detailed conversations with experts, and really the entirety of his Econtalk project.

I don’t see any problem here; I agree with all of the views Ozimek attributes to Russ, and I also think Russ does a great and valuable thing with Econtalk. There’s no question-begging or other type of problem here.

Here’s a hint of why: An economist from 50 years ago would know exactly what I mean.

17 Responses to “Russ Roberts Has Nothing For Which to Apologize”

  1. Toby says:

    Bit of a difference between economic theory and economic history I suppose 😉

  2. Harold says:

    Do you mean a particular economist from 50 yrs ago?

  3. Major.Freedom says:

    “He’s an economist who regularly complains that economics is less scientific than it thinks, and says things like he doesn’t think economists really know..[…]…the world than we did 50 years ago. But then Russ also has perhaps the best economics podcast in the world where he interviews leading economists about their research. It’s true Russ often provides a voice of skepticism, pushing back and asking hard questions. It’s a great part of the podcast. But the vast majority of the time Russ is clearly having people on because he thinks we can learn from hearing about their research. He’s hardly constantly disagreeing with them like you’d expect if he thought most of what they have done doesn’t tell us anything.

    Ozimek is not characterizing Robert’s position accurately. Not much having been learned in 50 years is different from not saying anything.

  4. skylien says:

    I don’t see why generally talking to economists of today, questioning them, even agreeing with them, contradicts the view that we basically already new that much 50 years ago.

    If AZ wants to make that statement he would have to show that the economists RR talks to hold specifically views that are either opposed to or are significantly new stuff that no one thought 50 years ago, and therefore changed how economists view the world today significantly from what they did 50 years ago.

    Also not to forget that in my view economists have a very broad field of opinions, 50 years ago as well as today…

    • skylien says:

      …*knew* that much…*

  5. Kevin L says:

    Is your thought that for the last 50 years, economists have mainly been fleshing out the frameworks that are already established? What would qualify as the last economic theory breakthrough? Public choice?

    • skylien says:

      I think in light of this discussion it would be nice if first RR and then AZ would flesh out their opinions in more detail. (Maybe RR has already in the past?)

      However without any specifics this is a useless discussion.

      • Kevin L says:

        I think Roberts’ view (having listened to pretty much every EconTalk) is that the dominance of mathematical analysis gives economics an appearance of being a natural science instead of a social science. This has distracted a couple generations of economists from developing really important theories in the tradition of Smith, Hayek, Buchanan, and other classical thinkers. Despite the countless careers spent developing mathematical models of the macro economy, there is still lots of division about what causes large fluctuations, growth, innovation, and prosperity in general.

        • skylien says:

          I guess I have catch up a lot with listening to his EconTalks.

          I can agree with that view certainly of RR,

  6. David R. Henderson says:

    Here’s a hint of why: An economist from 50 years ago would know exactly what I mean.

    Too opaque. Please explain.

    • Z says:

      He meant to say that David R. Henderson would know exactly what he meant.

    • Rick Hull says:

      Maybe it’s just a quip about the lately increasing misuse of the “question-begging” idiom, where Ozimek really means “it raises the question”. In any case, I agree with Bob that there is nothing questionable about harboring skepticism and then seeking dialogue with proponents to test that skepticism. That’s what open-minded people who haven’t lost the spirit of open inquiry *DO*.

    • Levi Russell says:

      Come on, Bob! Clear this up!

  7. Josiah says:

    I don’t know what Bob means either (though as I am not an economist from 50 years ago, maybe that’s not so surprising).

  8. Tel says:

    Why not interview economic historians about what economists were saying 50 years ago?

    The only explanation of this, would be jaw dropping oversight. Could happen to anyone I suppose.

Leave a Reply to Major.Freedom

Cancel Reply