Economics Goes Viral

Nothing gets me more excited than getting people with no formal background in economics to see how econ fits in their everyday life. In light of that, imagine my surprise when my good friend Eva Funderburgh, a professional sculptor, wanted to share some economics with me! Apparently she’s not the only one spreading the video above, because, as of this writing, the viral video above created by TV producer/director John Papola and economist Russ Roberts has already received over half a million views on YouTube! Papola and Roberts’ video does a wonderful job creating a new way to take a traditional economic discussion and make it more approachable and entertaining to a much wider audience. In my mind, every economics student should watch the video, and hopefully share it with others as well. For those with a little more time, NPR has put together a very entertaining look at how the project came to be.

The economic thoughts and ideas represented in the video are spot-on, and the lyrics are a fair presentation of the differing schools of thought. While the deeper issues behind the video are much larger than anyone could take on in a single blog post, I do see a place that might deserve a small footnote. I do not mean to take anything away from all the great work that went into this video, but I feel that Keynes’ introduction might deserve a bit of further discussion:

“John Maynard Keynes, wrote the book on modern macro”

Depending on how you define “modern,” an economist who died more than sixty years ago may no longer fit the bill. I think it is totally appropriate to say that Keynes wrote the book on 20th century macroeconomics, but the research frontier of the field is moving beyond his ideals. Starting in the 1970s, some members of the field have explored more complicated models based on critiques of Keynes’ work by Nobel Prize winners Robert Lucas and Milton Friedman, among others. These researchers worry that some of Keynesian economics’ critical assumptions oversimplify the world and make the model invalid. While Keynesian theory is still widely taught today and used by many people advising current policy decisions, some macroeconomists now advocate for models that are built on individual decision making, rather than only analysis based on total expenditure.

These “micro-founded” macro models seek to explain trends in data that defy Keynesian theory. One difference between these schools of thought centers on if household consumption decisions can change in response to fiscal and monetary policies. For example, Keynesian theory assumes that policy does not affect the fraction of net income spent and saved and that the amount of economy-wide consumption will simply change by the product of the tax’s size and the proportion of a household’s after-tax income spent on consumption (often referred to as the marginal propensity to consume, or MPC).

On the other hand, extensions of the micro-founded model proposed independently by Frank Ramsey, Dave Cass, and Tjalling Koopmans suggest that if the government were to lower taxes and give households more money, consumers may choose to change their entire consumption-spending decision based on having larger net income, thus resulting in a new MPC. Whether or not the assumptions made by Keynes are valid (or small enough to be overlooked) is a matter of personal opinion, but as the research horizon of economics extends more than half a century after his writing, it appears that there is still work to be done before macroeconomics can perfectly explain an entire real-world economy.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why should we “fear” booms and busts? Why might booms and busts be good? Is there an “optimal” level of economic fluctuation?

2. Who do the bartenders “Ben” and “Tim” represent in the video? Why are they pouring liquor? What does the liquor represent?

3. The chorus of the rap has Keynes saying “I want to control markets” and Hayek saying “I want to set [markets] free.” Is either of those positions right or wrong in all circumstances? Under what circumstances is more government intervention in markets warranted, and under what circumstances should the government stay out as much as possible?

4. What are the critiques that Keynes offers of Hayek? What are the criticisms that Hayek proposes about Keynes? Does one side seem to have a much stronger argument than the other, or do they both suggest that the theory’s view of the world is still incomplete?

5. Do you think the financial crisis of the past few years was caused by people who thought more like Keynes or more like Hayek? Why?

The Millionaires’ Amendment and the Law of Unintended Consequences

Even more than the law of supply, the law of demand, or the law of diminishing marginal utility, economists love the law of unintended consequences. A brief editorial in the New York Times provides a nice illustration of that law.

One of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform laws was an exception to campaign finance limits for the case in which a rich candidate contributes a large amount to his or her own campaign. The idea is simple: campaign finance laws generally govern how candidates for office can raise money from others, but don’t restrict how much money they themselves can spend on their own candidacy. Therefore, if one candidate is of modest means while another is rich, campaign finance laws that make it harder for the poorer candidate to raise money implicitly help the richer candidate.

To solve this problem, McCain-Feingold lifted campaign contribution limits for candidates facing a challenger who spent more than $350,000 of his or her own money on the campaign. This provision of the law is now being challenged as unconstitutional by Jack Davis, a millionaire who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2006. Davis claims that the effect of the law is to deter rich people from public service.

The Times editorial makes the following rebuttal:

There is also no sign that the amendment is discouraging the wealthy from running or spending. The very rich are represented in Congress in large numbers. Contrary to Mr. Davis’s claims of “chilling,” the number of candidates who spent more than $1 million of their own money actually increased after the amendment took effect. It is now common for party recruiters to seek out “self-financing”—or wealthy—candidates.

Consider the structure of the two arguments here. Davis argues a theoretical point: that allowing opponents of rich candidates to raise more money will have a “chilling” effect on millionaires running for office. The Times seeks to refute that point with empirical evidence: that the number of wealthy candidates has increased since the amendment was passed.

Now, a fun part of thinking like an economist is being able to parse arguments like this. Here are some questions that get you started.

1. Is Davis’s argument internally consistent? That is, holding all else constant, would you expect this amendment to have a “chilling” effect on millionaire candidates?

2. The amendment cited in the article was part of broader legislation limiting campaign fundraising. What effect would this have on the incentives political party recruiters face when choosing to seek out “self-financing” candidates?

3. Does the Times make the most convincing possible case against Davis? How might you argue the point differently? What is the strongest argument you could use to refute the Times’ point?

4. Think about the goals of John McCain and Russ Feingold, the authors of the campaign finance legislation. How do you think they feel about the fact that one effect of their legislation has been an increase in the recruiting of wealthy candidates? Based on that increase, do you think they would want more or fewer provisions like the Millionaires’ Amendment?

Krugman vs. Mankiw on Health Care

Two of the bestselling economics textbooks are by Paul Krugman of Princeton and Greg Mankiw of Harvard. Reading the textbooks, it’s not abundantly clear that the authors would disagree about much: both illustrate supply and demand, the gains from trade, the deadweight loss caused by taxes, the market failure that results from the existence of externalities.

So what could these two very smart men possibly disagree on? As it turns out, a lot.

Mankiw’s blog and Krugman’s New York Times op-ed column have become the sources of economic talking points for conservatives and liberals, respectively. As Brandon noted in a previous Aplia Econ Blog post, Mankiw recently wrote a column about American health care problems that are, in his opinion, overblown by some proponents of a national health insurance program. Krugman responded in his column a few days later. You can read Mankiw’s original article here, Krugman’s response here, and a rebuttal Mankiw wrote to his critics here. There’s plenty of blog chatter from both economists and non-economists as well.

There are several reasons why economists can disagree about public policy. These disagreements can be broadly categorized as follows:

1. They may disagree as to which economic theories are valid and which are not. This is fairly rare. Theories start with assumptions and derive conclusions from them. As long as they are mathematically accurate, most theories are valid for the assumptions on which they are based.


2. They may disagree as to which theories are best suited to addressing a particular problem. Another way of thinking about this is that since different theories are based on different assumptions, economists may disagree as to the validity of certain assumptions when applied to a particular problem.


3. They may disagree on a normative level rather than a positive one. Even if economists agree about the nature of a problem and which economic theories are most relevant, they may have different normative perspectives. For example, two economists may agree on a particular tradeoff between efficiency and equity, but one may prefer the more efficient outcome, while the other may prefer the more equitable one.

Discussion Questions

1. Which of the arguments made by Mankiw and Krugman do you find to be strongest? Which do you think are weakest? Why?

2. Based on the categories above (or any others you may come up with), what do you think is the nature of the disagreement between Mankiw and Krugman? How does each of them portray their differences with the opposing viewpoint? Why is there a disconnect between the true nature of their argument and the motives they ascribe to their opponents?

3. Mankiw and Krugman clearly have strongly held viewpoints based in part on differences in political ideology. What impact do you think this has on their teaching and research? For an academic economist, what is the appropriate level of ideology?