I am an economist. Beware of economists. Especially when they enter the discourse about public policy. Now, for a few comments about public policy.

Why are economists dangerous in the debates about public policy? Partly because they often have command of some facts. Note the adjective “some” in the previous sentence. Beware of economists bearing facts.

Partly because they often understand how various facts relate to each other. They can sometimes accurately predict what will happen to X if we change Y. Note the use of “sometimes” in the previous sentence. Beware of economists bearing predictions.

Partly because they are usually pretty good at arithmetic. They can multiply and divide with felicity. Transform variables and compute regressions in a wink. Build sophisticated econometric models that no regular human could possibly understand. Beware of economists bearing models.

Mostly, however, the dangers about economists are much more subtle. They all have their own underlying philosophy about the ideal way that they think humans should relate to one another and to the world. And they almost all keep these underlying ideologies hidden. Those hidden foundations are the real drivers in the advice that economists offer about public policy. The analytical exercises that they love to display are mostly window dressing, designed to impress regular humans with their rigorous objectivity. In reality, however, economists are usually just promoting their own subjective values.

Consider, for example, the question of the moral hazard. There is always a difficult balance between the urge to help the less fortunate vs. the fear of inviting the “less fortunate” to game the system. Compassionate assistance programs often encourage an unhealthy and unnecessary dependence. I strongly emphasize the latter while other economists focus on the former. Most, however, refuse to recognize that such preferences are what drive their advice.

Consider, for example, the hatred of the rich in America. There is a wide range of income and wealth in our country. If one pauses, however, to consider human conditions over the sweep of human history or, more importantly, the global range of income and wealth currently in existence, the picture changes. It can be argued that everybody in America is rich. Even the poorest of the poor. The 87th or the 93rd percentile, globally, are loudly complaining about how rich the 99th percentile is. Envy or jealousy are the only honest descriptors. One economist’s consciousness of that reality is central to her advice while another dismisses it as irrelevant.

Consider, for example, the idea of equality under the law. Virtually all economists trumpet that as an abstract principle. And immediately abandon it when it comes to specific public policy decisions. They, like many ordinary Americans, just want to choose the worthy and the unworthy. And do so. The worthy are awarded benefits and the unworthy are assigned burdens. But an economist will probably have some silly computer model to justify his or her choice.

So, if economists are not a trustworthy source, who can we look to for wise advice on public policy issues? Religious leaders who actively encourage their flocks to believe supernatural stuff? Politicians on a two-year re-election cycle? University professors? Op-ed writers? Yuck!

Please, won’t someone give us a reason to hope for wisdom?

— Robert Latham lives in Silver Lake.