Talk:Economist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] Suggestions

- Not sure where to put this comment, but it is widely agreed that economists tend to be right wing, espouse right wing economic theories, especially theories that are beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor. Its often been said that if you one of the more right wing departments in a university, go to the economics department. The only mention I see of political orientation is some bogus stats about how they mostly left leaning. Not an accurate representation at all I should think, but I don't have the time to do the research/citation whatever.

Of course the majority of economists are wrong, but that's a whole other can of beans... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.223.249 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats not true. For example, the econ department at MIT is pretty left leaning, as oppose to its political science department which is right wing. A commonly held misconception is that economist are "right wingers." There are economists in all ends of the spectrum. Examples through personalities is Princeton's Paul Krugman and Columbia's Joseph E. Stiglitz. Another thing to keep in mind is that academic economics is different from the stuff you read on the media since in the media austrians are over-represented compared to much lower share in academia. Brusegadi (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's actually a common myth that economists are on the right. The bogus stats are peer-reviewed empirical studies (of which I have seen quite a few, showing most economists to be left-leaning). Here's a good article (writing actually by some of the comparatively few laissez-faire economists): [1]. Signaturebrendel 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


- Moving Keynes to the "founding fathers", after all he has created a school of thought. (I would recommend doing the same for Schumpeter, but one could argue about that...)

- Adding Robert E. Lucas jr. to the list of important contributors. --212.17.67.202 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


- Keynes was not a founding father, I am sorry. The field of economics was well stablished when he came along. He most definetly is not a founding father. He was extremely important though. Herbert Alves 05:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Marx?

I was surprised to see that Karl Marx is not included in the list of famous economists. Any particular reason for this? dbtfztalk 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added Marx to the list. dbtfztalk 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Uhhh, I'm more surprise by some of the folks who are included. Just cause you're in business does not make you a 'famous economist'radek 07:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Here’s a list of ones I’m gonna remove, based on the criteria that the list should include folks who are famous FOR being economists not folks who have happened to study economics and got famous for other reasons:

Alejandro Toledo

Anibal Silva

George Soros – businessman, not an economist. There’s a difference.

Jacques Delors

Kofi Annan

Romano Prodi

Viktor Yushchenko

Wim Duisenberg

For the most part these are “Famous politicians who have studied economics” not “Famous Economics”. Feel free to create a new category under that heading (should include JFK and Nixon too though).radek 07:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. dbtfztalk 07:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it "Famous Economists" should include people who are 1) famous inside economics/have made significant contributions to economics, 2) are sort of known by the general public. Under these criteria Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman are both "Famous Economists" (and obviously Smith, Marx, Ricardo etc.). But Ohlin, however great his contributions are, wouldn't. Even Galbraith, whom personally I don't particularly like, should be on the list. I'm gonna mess around with the list some more, any comments etc. are appreciated.radek 07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was gonna say, we already have the list of economists; the list here should just contain the 10 or 20 most important/influential figures in the history of economics. (Actually, I don't think we should take into consideration how well known they are among the public. This might rule out people like Krugman, who (I think) is mainly famous because he writes for the New York Times, not for any major achievements in the field of economics.) dbtfztalk 08:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The tension here is between "most important in the history of economics" which will wind up including some obsucre folks and "known to the public", which is what I think "famous" means, but might include people who are not seriously taken by people within the profession (that's how Galbraith came to mind). Krugman's pretty famous due to his column. And yeah he's also made some very significant contributions to economics, though his research output has seriously slacked since he started writing that column. Now I'm thinking it'd be best to break it up into "Famous Economists", "Influential Economists" and "Famous people who were economists" but that seems like some kind of article-sprawl.radek 08:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Marx was in, I removed him. Now he's back in with the editorial comment, "Marx...certainly did found a major 'school' and 'current of thought' in economics, even if it was wrong." Marx did not found a school of nor contribute to current economic thought. He founded, if anything, a school of philosophical thought. The subject matter about which he philosophized was economics, but he was not an economist. Further, he did not contribute to current economic thought as there are fewer Marxist economists today than there are Creationist biologists. In addition, while one might argue that he deserves listing as one who contributed to socioeconomic philosophy, he certainly isn't a 'founding father.' So, in consideration of editors who want to keep his name in the article, I suggest changing "Early thinkers in economics" to "Economic Philosophers" and moving him there. Wikiant 13:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So... Ptolemy is not an astronomer because no one uses epicycles anymore? Heck, you could say that Copernicus was not an astronomer, because no modern astronomer believes that the sun is the center of the universe with planets in circular orbits, let alone Copernicus's less enlightened contemporary star-gazers. Manichaeism is a dead religion, but it's still a religion. More generally, you don't even have to be good at something to still do it- Thomas Kinkade is unquestionably a painter, even if an incredibly kitschy one.
Marx considered himself both a philosopher and an economist. Note that he wrote Das Kapital, which went into some detail about capital, employment, wages, "value," and so on, things that sound suspiciously like economics. To quote the article:
However, though Marx is very concerned with the social aspects of commerce, his book is not an ethical treatise, but an (unfinished) attempt to explain the objective "laws of motion" of the capitalist system as a whole, its origins and future. He aims to reveal the causes and dynamics of the accumulation of capital, the growth of wage labour, the transformation of the workplace, the concentration of capital, competition, the banking and credit system, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, land-rents and many other things.
There are articles here at WP on Marxian economics and the labor theory of value. Economics is a social science, not a political philosophy; while Marx certainly doesn't subscribe to the politics of the vast majority of modern economics, he certainly approached the scientific aspect seriously. There was fairly serious debate between Marxist economics and "standard" economics for some time, especially in the 1930's and 40's. It could be argued that the debate continues even now, though I will grant that the Marxists have fallen back more on political grounds than intellectual ones. Still, even if for some reason we do apply the modern test, it's still relevant- Segolene Royale may well be the next President of France, and parts of France's socialist party are pretty much unreconstructed Marxists.
Also, the economic philosophers list seems pretty vague, and while an argument can be made about Aristotle, I'd definitely not list Plato when thinking about economics. I'd be in favor of just removing the section. SnowFire 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there is a fundamental difference between Copernicus and Marx in that Copernicus mastered the then-known science and then attempted to push it forward. In contrast, Marx pushed without mastering then then-known science. Wikiant 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
So... Marx was a "bad" economist then. Fair enough, but he was still an enormously influential one. Multiple generations of Russians & East Europeans didn't have any other choice if they wanted to study economics. SnowFire 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, he wasn't a bad economist -- that's precisely my point. He wasn't an economist at all. Wikiant 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But you can't just assert that, especially on as nebulous grounds as you're giving. Look, the following are incontroverible facts I propose:

  1. Marx was interested in economics and studied the matter.
  2. Marx wrote on his theories of economics.
  3. These theories have been enormously influential.

So what's the problem with calling him an economist?

The most I can gather is that he should have "mastered the then-known science and then attempted to push it forward." Can you point me to any neutral source that also makes such a requirement? I don't get it. Number 1, there have been plenty of serious, well-meaning scientists who have proposed theories that ended up being not just wrong, but wrong and a dead-end (Perhaps those working on String theory#Problems and controversy?). Do they not count? Number 2, as for the requirement of "mastering" the current knowledge, well, I can only say that many recognized innovators did not "master" the current knowledge. In fact, that's often why they were succesful, because the current knowledge was wrong and they avoided its biases. (Not saying this necessarily applies in Marx's case, but he did have a fresh perspective on the problem, that's no doubt.) SnowFire 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I hear your argument. What bothers me are the logical implications. For example, the same three criteria you propose for classifying Marx as an economist can be used to classify any Creationist as a biologist. If, on the basis of these criteria, we agree that Marx was an economist, then we must de-facto agree that Creationists are biologists, that Scientologists are psychologists, etc. Wikiant 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I found a reliable (IMHO) source that confirms your position. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html. You are correct. Let's put him back in. Wikiant 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as the link says, Marx is a "real" economist, and closer to scientists with wrong theories than psuedoscientists. That said, you did hit on an issue that WP does have. Generally, WP policy is fairly lenient and tends to go with self-identification. This only tends to get overruled when dealing with really outright psuedoscientists; I think the distinction here is "seriousness." A zealot who disavows Einstein's relativity and has published his own book on why this is so (there are a few) is probably still a phycisist, albeit unlikely to be an influential or notable one. On the other hand, someone who sells healing crystals should pretty clearly not be labeled a quantum mechanics specialist even if they attempt to use some fuzzy version of it in their pamphlets. So, yes, real biologists who are also creationists proponents of "Intelligent Design" and have done some lab work to back themselves up? Go ahead and call 'em biologists, even if they're likely biased. They have at least tried to approach the problem from a biologist's point of view. On the other hand, people who argue for creationism/Intelligent Design from a scriptural perspective are clearly not biologists. Same with Scientologists claiming to be psychiatrists. SnowFire 03:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Robert Heilbroner says in his famous book The Worldly Philosophers that Marx was an economist, and anyone who reads the Capital realizes that he only criticizes capitalism, and how it will self destruct, and the proletarian... bla bla bla

Compare Marx to Creationists is just wrong. He was SCIENTIST.

Wrong as he might have been, his economic theory shaped our world just as Keynes did. Hitler might not have become Chanceler, if it weren't for Marx's communism. The Soviet Union, China, the war in Vietnam.

I'm glad this all got settled in a fair way Herbert Alves 06:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agreed (above) that many writers appear to agree that Marx was an economist. I do not, however, agree that he was a scientist. A scientist is one who employs the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, testing. Marx did the first two, but not the third. In fact, no economists of Marx' day could do more than observe and hypothesize because econometrics hadn't yet evolved as a tool. Wikiant 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The early economists were philosophers. It is the testing part that distinguishes science from philosophy. --JHP (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Skousen, an economist prominent enough to have his own Wikipedia entry, lists Marx as one of "The Big Three in Economics". --JHP (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max Weber

"While Max Weber is best known and recognised today as one of the leading scholars and founders of modern sociology, he also accomplished much in the field of economics. However, during his life no such distinctions really existed." - from Max Weber article in Wikipedia, and it is also my own conviction. Typelighter 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laffer as founding father in economics?

I removed Laffer as he neither founded supply-side economics, nor is he the principle economist associated with it. Friedman and Hayek are the economists best associated with that school of thought, and both deserve to be listed as Founding Fathers.

Friedman and Hayek are the economists best associated with that school of thought - you'll need a reference for that; those two are more closely associated with the Austrian School and Classical economics. Signaturebrendel 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Friedman was a Chicago school economist and Hayek was of the Austrian school. Not only were they very different from each other, neither of them were supply-siders. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
True - as I've said in my post above; I think some confusion comes from the fact that both Hayek and Friedman were libertarians and are, therefore, associated with the GOP. Neither, however, were the founding fathers of supply-side economics. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section: Politicians, statesmen and world leaders

Why are the names not in same length lists? Is it because of something?

[edit] Yunus

With all due respect, Muhammad Yunus is no economist. Just like Coca-Cola CEO is no chemist.

Your comparison is idiotic. Muhammad Yunus has a Ph.D. in economics and was head of the economics department at Chittagong University. E. Neville Isdell, the CEO of the Coca-Cola Company, does not have a degree in chemistry. The term "economist" is not just a description of one's occupation, but also a description of one's knowledge. --JHP (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture

it is absolutely fucking ridiculous to have a picture of 'an economist'. you wouldn't have a picture of a geographer or a financial analyst would you?

You have a point there, though I am not about to take sides on that issue. But is the strong lanaguage really neccessary? Oh, well. Signaturebrendel 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)