Good/Bad Leaders Are Criticised All Alike

Tweet

Economic conditions and policies affect everyone. I wonder why not everyone takes economics in their studies. And since most of us do not study economics, why are there so many who are so ready to comment on the economic affairs and criticise the policies? Don't they have a single bit of worrisome that their rants turn out to be untrue and superficial, that in the process they reveal merely a deficiency of understanding? Perhaps the usual large camp of vociferous peers at their side helps assuage this insecurity. The only answer one could surmise is most people see economics as a simple discipline. Even a postdoctoral study in it would bring us where common sense would lead us to. But the truth is "economics is a difficult and technical subject but nobody will believe it", quoted from J.M. Keynes. We can imagine how thankless the job and how hard the position is for a well-informed and well-intentioned government. For any unfavourable announcement, the public almost always does not want to listen and does not believe in the government's explanations, but wants to make noises that are non sequitur (to an expert). Paul Krugman, for long in his writings, has been attempting "to explode some plausible-sounding idea that happens to be false or to promote some implausible, disturbing idea that happens to be true", and in the end has managed to make enemies. I remember reading about the uproar he ignited by answering "none" to a question about North American Free Trade Agreement's effect on the US employment. My point is, economic conclusions can be counter-intuitive. The most commonly cited would be Ricardo's Comparative Advantage. On this, Krugman wrote a long essay explaining why many smart people don't understand it and are not ashamed of their failure. "Like any scientific concept it is actually part of a dense web of linked ideas. A trained economist looks at the simple Ricardian model and sees a story that can be told in a few minutes; but in fact to tell that story so quickly one must presume that one's audience understands a number of other stories... and you continually find yourself obliged to backtrack, realizing that yet another proposition you thought was obvious actually isn't." So, good leaders are criticised for policies that look "stupid and suicidal" (i.e. for how they go about running the economy), which the public does not approve of. Bad leaders are criticised for unsatisfactory economic outcomes, which the public also does not approve of. ...................................................... PS: I am not saying that it is wrong for the public to make noise. But it is tricky when the rabble-rousers do not really know what they are noising about. Any sensible explanation is rendered useless at such moment. Emotional hightide overwhelms the most basic logic. I presume, in the first place, we vote for leaders whom we believe could lead the country, not for their ability to follow the crowd in areas that require expertise e.g. economic planning, foreign policy, law, intelligence and security matters. Thus the proper stance in facing dubious policies should be of questioning, not of teaching the experts. Likewise, an enlightened government would conduct consultations with the professionals from their respective fields before the release of a policy, e.g. Singapore and Hong Kong. ...................................................... Excerpts from Poypips's Comment, on Time Horizon: "when someone does good which has negative short-term effects for greater benefits in the future, people start filling the streets shouting... people do have tendencies to be short-sighted... When a doctor tells you to undergo surgery, you don't tell him 'Go to hell, surgery hurts. Give me a treatment that I'll enjoy.' " That's right. One of the problems in making economics clear to people is time horizon. We see, hear and feel the immediate short-term pain. Any long-term gain is unbeknownst to us. And we tend to say the economists live in their theoretical world, when in fact they are the ones who see the "real" reality. Economics does not promise instant wealth, but ensures that seeds of success are sown. That's why a well-informed and well-intentioned government is treading on eggs. They have a hard task ahead on persuasion. An irresponsible politician would just pick the easier path by pleasing voters now, at the expense of society's future well-being -- injecting sweet poison instead of bitter pill.