How to silence a Nobel Prize winning economist: Ask him about the economy.

[low preference guy]

From the Peter Schiff show

[cubical]

I love when Schiff makes fun of people on TV or Nobel Prize winners. He does it so nonchalantly and just brings out their stupidity.

[Bern]

That's why he's a professor and not a professional investor.

[JasonC]

Did Schiff get rid of the 24 HR loop of his show? I just went on schiffradio.com to listen to him today, and I do not see anything where I can listen to today's show.

[ctiger2]

Krugman would be the same weasily way. These academics are so very afraid of saying something and being wrong, they'd prefer to say nothing at all. There's a reason Krugman won't debate anyone. My brother who hides in academia is exactly the same way. Narrow minded and belligerently adamant he's right about everything. I told him when everything collapses, don't come looking to me for help, I don't know anything.

[bb_dg]

Damn, these guys are worse than Krugman. Krugman at least has opinion, Krugman at least is confident in himself, Krugman at least has a beared.

[TonySutton]

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

[ababba]

I think being humble is a sign of strength. Knowing what you don't know is really important.

If you guys understand Hayek, this is exactly one of the most important points he was trying to make, that economic planners never have enough information to know which policies to implement.

But of course Peter Schiff knows everything, even the things that Hayek says are impossible to know?

[Travlyr]

It is a pretty funny video. How much do those guys get paid?

It is just more proof that nobody knows how to control economies, and they should stop trying. What is so bad about letting people prosper without Ivy League elite picking the winners and losers?

[mainstream economist]

Actually, I think Sims deserves some respect for reserving judgment. I guarantee you that Krugman would have advanced his own opinions as absolute incontrovertible truths (oops, he's ALREADY does so every single day).

The truth is that there is not much that economists can honestly say about the real economy. All macroeconomic theories hinge so sharply on seemingly arbitrary and obviously false assumptions (we euphemistically call them "theoretical abstractions of stylized facts") that they cannot give us direction even if they enhance our understanding.

People say that the most successful application of economic theory to policy has been the design of the FCC spectrum auctions. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that even in that particular example economic theory could not specify what was the best auction design. When it came to designing an auction for the real world, the best that the economists could do was point out a few auction designs that were definitely bad.

I think the more people realize that these brilliant people don't have answers (even complex answers) to managing the economy, the more they will come to realize that central planning is not the right answer.

[musicmax]

There's no such thing as a "Nobel Prize in Economics". The prize is called the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". The "Sveriges Riksbank" is the Central Bank of Sweden (i.e. the Swedish Fed).

[Schiff_FTW]

hahaha Peter just breaks down the absurdity of it all so beautifully

[buck000]

Due to my having heard claims that many economists are in the pocket of the Fed, my first thought about their inability to answer was, "hmmmm, I don't think they want to bite the (Fed/ECB) hand that probably feeds them."

Here's an interview from 2007 of one of the Laureates: htt p://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3168 Note the phrase "...his colleagues (including many at the Minneapolis Fed)..." It also says that "Sims pioneered vector autoregression (VAR) methods that generate economic forecasts of unequaled accuracy..." Might be interesting to see what his predictions were from '07...!

[TheViper]

You fellas defending these economists are seriously baffling me.

You're an economic Nobel laureate and go a media conference about economics and yet you reply to a very basic question with, "I need more time to think on such a tough question"?

I get that central economic planning doesn't work but that's not what they were asked. They were asked if the president was making the right economic moves. Then one of them says he was hoping to talk about Europe instead of the US (despite the conference being in the US and him being an NYU professor) and then passed the buck to his colleague the moment someone did ask about Europe.

They looked like NFL wide receivers intentionally trying to dodge the football.

[ababba]

Due to my having heard claims that many economists are in the pocket of the Fed, my first thought about their inability to answer was, "hmmmm, I don't think they want to bite the (Fed/ECB) hand that probably feeds them."

Here's an interview from 2007 of one of the Laureates: htt p://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3168 Note the phrase "...his colleagues (including many at the Minneapolis Fed)..." It also says that "Sims pioneered vector autoregression (VAR) methods that generate economic forecasts of unequaled accuracy..." Might be interesting to see what his predictions were from '07...!

Unequaled accuracy doesn't mean "always right" it means better at forecasting out of sample than most other methods of forecasting.

[ababba]

You fellas defending these economists are seriously baffling me.

You're an economic Nobel laureate and go a media conference about economics and yet you reply to a very basic question with, "I need more time to think on such a tough question"?

I get that central economic planning doesn't work but that's not what they were asked. They were asked if the president was making the right economic moves. Then one of them says he was hoping to talk about Europe instead of the US (despite the conference being in the US and him being an NYU professor) and then passed the buck to his colleague the moment someone did ask about Europe.

They looked like NFL wide receivers intentionally trying to dodge the football.

These are smart men, they obviously have a personal opinion. Its not that they are stupid, its just that they chose not to share it. I think its because its not their profesional opinion, made in the conduct of academic research. They are more reserved about their opinions that aren't the result of extensive research.

[TheViper]

These are smart men, they obviously have a personal opinion. Its not that they are stupid, its just that they chose not to share it. I think its because its not their profesional opinion, made in the conduct of academic research. They are more reserved about their opinions that aren't the result of extensive research.

Then why bother showing up to a media conference to discuss economics if you don't plan to discuss economics?

Would you defend Ron Paul if he was silent at tonight's debate simply because he didn't have time to make extensive research to the moderators questions?

Keep in mind that I'm not calling the economists stupid, I'm calling their actions stupid.

[low preference guy]

These are smart men, they obviously have a personal opinion. Its not that they are stupid, its just that they chose not to share it. I think its because its not their profesional opinion, made in the conduct of academic research. They are more reserved about their opinions that aren't the result of extensive research.

an economist should be able to answer a basic question about the economy. stop being ridiculous. you're probably another brainwashed keynesian.

[Romulus]

These are smart men, they obviously have a personal opinion. Its not that they are stupid, its just that they chose not to share it. I think its because its not their profesional opinion, made in the conduct of academic research. They are more reserved about their opinions that aren't the result of extensive research.

That really is a horrible excuse for their non response.

[mainstream economist]

You fellas defending these economists are seriously baffling me.

You're an economic Nobel laureate and go a media conference about economics and yet you reply to a very basic question with, "I need more time to think on such a tough question"?

I get that central economic planning doesn't work but that's not what they were asked. They were asked if the president was making the right economic moves. Then one of them says he was hoping to talk about Europe instead of the US (despite the conference being in the US and him being an NYU professor) and then passed the buck to his colleague the moment someone did ask about Europe.

They looked like NFL wide receivers intentionally trying to dodge the football.

Asking if the president is making the right moves is asking if the president's central planning action was correct. The way they answered is good for us. Would you rather that they used their Nobel halo to promote Obama's central planning (or someone else's central planning)? Other than them embracing Austrian economics (which no one expected them to do), this was the next best thing for us. The fact that these people admitted on camera to not knowing helps us fight both Obama and Romney/Perry/Cain/whoever.

While you might think that it is sad that a Noble laureate cannot answer this question, I find comfort in the fact that he could at least be half-honest about not being able to answer the question.

[TheViper]

Asking if the president is making the right moves is asking if the president's central planning action was correct. The way they answered is good for us. Would you rather that they used their Nobel halo to promote Obama's central planning (or someone else's central planning)? Other than them embracing Austrian economics (which no one expected them to do), this was the next best thing for us. The fact that these people admitted on camera to not knowing helps us fight both Obama and Romney/Perry/Cain/whoever.

While you might think that it is sad that a Noble laureate cannot answer this question, I find comfort in the fact that he could at least be half-honest about not being able to answer the question.

Certainly the Austrian economist in me is pleased with their non-answer. It helps our cause.

But I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of being economic Nobel prize laureates at a media conference to answer questions about the economy. It just seems absolutely silly to not say something about it at all. What then was the entire point of being there? Why bother having a conference on a subject you don't intend to actually talk about?

[devil21]

These guys are jockeying for taxpayer funded cushy positions in the Obama administration (or a future administration) and do NOT want to say anything that could bite them later, including criticizing the government or just plain being wrong. These Nobel winners are politicians hiding behind their academic resumes. They're picked for politicial reasons. I think Obama's Peace Prize clearly demonstrates this. They have opinions. They're just not going to say them in public like that when they may come to regret it later if it damages their career aspirations.

[ababba]

That really is a horrible excuse for their non response.

I think its more that the public misunderstands what Economics professors do today. Sims work is more about developing methods for other people to answer Macro questions. Not all professors study the Macro economy on a daily basis and it would be wrong to offer a personal opinion as a professional opinion if it doesn't directly stem from your research.

[low preference guy]

I think its more that the public misunderstands what Economics professors do today. Sims work is more about developing methods for other people to answer Macro questions. Not all professors study the Macro economy on a daily basis and it would be wrong to offer a personal opinion as a professional opinion if it doesn't directly stem from your research.

Well, what economists do today is mostly get paid by the state to say that the state should tax more and steal the purchasing power from the population via inflation to benefit the state. But this fact doesn't absolve this "economist" for his ignorance.

[libertybrewcity]

I really don't understand. Were they afraid of speaking? Maybe they were tripping on acid.

[ababba]

Well, what economists do today is mostly get paid by the state to say that the state should tax more and steal the purchasing power from the population via inflation to benefit the state. But this fact doesn't absolve this "economist" for his ignorance.

I'm not sure if you know what you are saying is incorrect and this is some sort of inside joke, but the above statement is not even remotely close to a good description of what they do. They aren't even making policy recommendations is most of their work. Seargant is known for his most famous paper which argues that fiscal deficits must eventually lead to inflation and Sim's basically does applied statistics and neither one argues for the things you claim they do.

[wannaberocker]

There is a strong difference between Good economist and Bad economist. In my view Good economist deal with real world problems and try to provide real world solutions. Bad economist like these "great minds" at this press conference deal with equations and then pat each other on the back for being so smart that normal folks cant even understand them.

[ababba]

There is a strong difference between Good economist and Bad economist. In my view Good economist deal with real world problems and try to provide real world solutions. Bad economist like these "great minds" at this press conference deal with equations and then pat each other on the back for being so smart that normal folks cant even understand them.

I think its a lot more subtle than that but generally right. The problem is that sometimes economists take mathematical models too seriously. They are obviously not literally true. However, math is a useful tool for a lot of economic work and swearing off math is just as dumb as taking it too seriously. There have been a number of times in which I had a seemingly good idea, wrote down the math and realized I was wrong. Doing this shows you where the basic intuition is also wrong and allows you to correct your understanding of the problem. As long as you understand the difference between the equations and real people the math can still be really helpful.

[wannaberocker]

I think its a lot more subtle than that but generally right. The problem is that sometimes economists take mathematical models too seriously. They are obviously not literally true. However, math is a useful tool for a lot of economic work and swearing off math is just as dumb as taking it too seriously. There have been a number of times in which I had a seemingly good idea, wrote down the math and realized I was wrong. Doing this shows you where the basic intuition is also wrong and allows you to correct your understanding of the problem. As long as you understand the difference between the equations and real people the math can still be really helpful.

Of course dont get me wrong im not anti math or equations. Im just saying economist like the ones on stage cant seem to answer simple lil questions about the real world. What do they need an equation just to form an opinion on the kinda results centeral planning policies create? My point is that sometimes people cant get soooo much into the equations and math of things that they start lacking in the common sense realm. Ill give you an example. My father never studied economics, but a good friend of mine who went to school with me and was in many of the same economics classes. One day we started discussing govt jobs vs private jobs. My father says "well, govt can basically create jobs out of thing air aslong as it results in votes. They will tell one guy to dig a hole and the other to fill it up". Now that would seem like its common sense. But my friend goes "yeah well i havent read data on the matter, so i cant really give you an agree or disagree answer". That to me is becoming so overly relient of models and equations that you miss the obvious.

My father's uneducated opinion was not wrong. Its something that happens in economies world wide. But my friend whos way more educated than my father, cant even form an opinion.

[Freshwater]

One of the dumbest things i've watched in a good, long while. Thomas Sargent was one of the most important economists in the anti-Keynesian revolution of the 1970s. If you dislike the modern, much more moderate Keynesianism then you should be goddamn grateful that people like Thomas Sargent, Robert Lucas and Ed Prescott killed off the ridiculous hydraulic fiscalism that was the only game in town during the 60s. He's a libertarian for Christ's sake. Some of his more important recent work shows the dangers of European level UI benefits. Some of his other recent work implies large macro level labor supply elasticities, something that has obvious implications for tax policy. (TAX CUTS GOOD)

And Sims answer was fine. Economics is a science. Science is difficult. Economists aren't pundits- they're interested in finding the truth. If anyone can belt off (with complete certitude) a soundbite sized answer to any economic question then they're in the business of political hackery, not in the science of economics.

Schiff has a bachelor's degree in accounting/finance. Peter Schiff isn't an economist. Peter Schiff is a crank right wing version of Robert Reich- a pop intellectual with a pop intellectual understanding of the field.