New approach to this blog.
October 18th, 2009 | Published in Economics idea | 7 Comments
In an attempt to generate more interest in this blog, I’m going to focus on making this blog more interactive. My plan is as follows:
- I’m going to post less often. I’m going to start posting once per week as a start to see what happens.
- My posts will be designed as a launching point for discussion. Instead of explaining what I think, I will describe questions I am interested in.
- My hope is that people will leave comments with their views on the week’s post.
- I will participate in the dialog, responding to what people write.
The idea behind this change is that people don’t have enough time to read the daily onslaught of posts I write. When people do log on, they probably encounter several days worth of posts and just skim over them.
Instead of going for volume, I want to go for depth. My hope is that by having a focus for the week and time to think about a problem readers will find it easier and more inviting to comment. I’d like to turn my monolog on economics into a dialog.
This is my post for the week. I would like to hear back from readers about what they think of this change. Would they like to participate in back and forth comments on less frequent posts?
If you people like the idea, what topics would you like to start with? My hunch is that I should start at the top and explore what the purpose of economics is.
p.s. I’m starting up my blog How We Choose again with the same approach.
October 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pm (#)
Stephen,
Looks to me to be worth a try. I appreciate a good arguement.
Quite frankly, it some times comes across that you are determined to sell your ideas of what regulations, controls and limitations business must operate under, how labor should be constrained or supported, how prices and costs should be controlled.
As you have probably determined by now, I have a problem with your strict controls as proposed so far.
Clyde
October 19th, 2009 at 3:05 pm (#)
Seems like a worth-while approach to me, too. I think the challenge is driving traffic to the site and encouraging dialog.
Eric
October 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm (#)
ClydeB
I had spotted that you don’t agree with a lot of what I write. I like your input none the less.
While it may seem that I am pushing a particular agenda, what I am really trying to do is show that there are other ways to run an economy that might work better than our current one. My starting point is that poverty and unemployment are bad. I’m willing to consider extreme solutions that might help reduce or eliminate them.
Eric.
There are ways to drive traffic to the site. For example, StumbleUpon sells hits to a site. I can get lots of random people coming for not that much money. The problem is getting them to keep coming back and perhaps even to tell their friends to come visit. To do that, the site has to be interesting and fun. I don’t think I have hit the mark yet.
Do you two agree that it makes sense to make reducing poverty and unemployment a key goal of economics?
October 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm (#)
Stephen,
I frequently lose sight of the differences in our forms of government as well as having a different understanding of the role of economics.
Our present situation has been greatly worsened by the economic advice President Obama has been getting wich colors my opinion as well. His is not the first administration to be mis-lead by economists, bt none so badly.
Both of these points have an impact on my regard for economics. Quite frankly, I’d rather see economics as a study of what is happening versus having influence on what is to happen.
Clyde
October 20th, 2009 at 8:30 pm (#)
ClydeB
If markets worked reliably and fairly on their own, I’d agree with your position one hundred per cent. The problem is that markets don’t work flawlessly. There is no reason to expect them to deliver good results if they are left alone.
What is the foundation of your belief that markets have the power to deliver desirable outcomes? Economic theory only shows that markets are efficient in artificial situations where strong assumptions hold.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm (#)
Definition-wise, I think I agree with ClydeB that economics is the study of what actually happens; parallel to physics being the study of actual physical processes. I would say “economic policy” where you say “economics”.
To the question, I think it is a reasonable role for government to reduce poverty and unemployment. Government should evaluate the mechanisms at its disposal, which includes changing economic policy, to try to improve poverty and unemployment. The key is to identify the level of desired outcome (for example, how low do we want unemployment to be?) and the expected cost.
For poverty, for example, there are options to increase the welfare system, provide more/better services to the poor, provide “mincome”, or to overhaul the entire economic system.
Eric
October 21st, 2009 at 7:21 pm (#)
Eric.
Your analogy to physics is interesting. Physics is about studying the world as it is. Engineering is the profession that attempts to find ways to modify the world in ways that suit us better. Engineering relies on physics to guide its endeavors.
There is only one discipline of economics. It seems to be responsible for both the “physics” and the “engineering.”
I actually don’t think that it makes sense to have a physics version of economics. We define the rules or laws that guide the economy. Worse, how people behave is affected by their understanding of economics. I think economics should be all engineering.
Having said that, not all engineers design new things. Some engineers study why bridges collapse. Others try to figure out why planes crash. The point I am trying to make is that the economy is a man-made entity. There is no objective world of economics to explore.
As to the poverty question, I agree that the government should address the problems of poverty and unemployment in the least expensive way possible. My belief is that finding ways to reduce unemployment is an important mechanism to consider.