Economists aren't cold-hearted--it's just our day job
Economists sometimes come off as cold-hearted, unfeeling jerks who don't care about how people might get hurt in their single-minded quest for economic growth. We--and I consider myself an economist by virtue of my studies--seem not to care about the deep-down psychological reasons why people do things. Why does Sneha want to be a doctor: because she wants help people, 'cause she thinks biology is fun, or because she wants to get rich? As long as she an excellent doctor, the laws of economics don't really care what her motives are.
But obviously motive is extremely important in human society! While economists might consider two causes of death functionally identical, the courts only take a special interest in some. Do men give gifts to their wives because they love them, or because they are purchasing their wives' affection? To an economist, as long as the effects are the same, it doesn't really matter.
However, you shouldn't be hard on economists for our apparent indifference to the murky world of feelings. On a personal level, we are people too! Our analyses are impersonal--so don't take them personally. When Steven Levitt suggested in his popular book Freakonomics that abortion might be responsible for a drop in crime, some people were highly offended. But he wasn't promoting abortion, just contributing information to the debate. I wouldn't legalize abortion under any circumstances, so his statistics don't make a difference to me.
What irks me most is when people accuse free-market economists of promoting policies which make the rich richer and the poor poorer. On the contrary, free markets tend to benefit everyone. Foolish ideas like minimum wage, tariffs and income redistribution not only hurt everyone's pocketbooks, they reduce the opportunity for people to improve their station in life. Alas, the electorate and the politicians are too uneducated to realize these simple facts.
So the next time you hear an economist make what seems to be an insensitive, heartless, or cruel remark, please ask yourself: is he actually a pigheaded boor, or could it be that he's actually a nice guy when he's off-duty?
But obviously motive is extremely important in human society! While economists might consider two causes of death functionally identical, the courts only take a special interest in some. Do men give gifts to their wives because they love them, or because they are purchasing their wives' affection? To an economist, as long as the effects are the same, it doesn't really matter.
However, you shouldn't be hard on economists for our apparent indifference to the murky world of feelings. On a personal level, we are people too! Our analyses are impersonal--so don't take them personally. When Steven Levitt suggested in his popular book Freakonomics that abortion might be responsible for a drop in crime, some people were highly offended. But he wasn't promoting abortion, just contributing information to the debate. I wouldn't legalize abortion under any circumstances, so his statistics don't make a difference to me.
What irks me most is when people accuse free-market economists of promoting policies which make the rich richer and the poor poorer. On the contrary, free markets tend to benefit everyone. Foolish ideas like minimum wage, tariffs and income redistribution not only hurt everyone's pocketbooks, they reduce the opportunity for people to improve their station in life. Alas, the electorate and the politicians are too uneducated to realize these simple facts.
So the next time you hear an economist make what seems to be an insensitive, heartless, or cruel remark, please ask yourself: is he actually a pigheaded boor, or could it be that he's actually a nice guy when he's off-duty?