Monday, April 6, 2015
Economics and Elections
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/paul-krugman-economics-and-elections.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0 DUE 13 APRIL 2015. Who is to blame for the lack of knowledge on economic policy?? To the common voter, what are these policies based upon?? How do British elections compare to the U.S.??? In the end, what should economists do to influence the outcomes in political elections? How much of a difference will it make and why??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Britain’s economic performance since the financial crisis struck has been startlingly bad and the real income per capita is only now reaching its level on the eve of the crisis so that means that it has a much worse track record since it did during the great depression. We can blame he weakness of the opposition and the fecklessness of the news media for the lack of knowledge on economic policy. We can see that to a common voter, all that matters it’s the instant benefits. These policies are based on recent growth not on long-term results.
ReplyDeleteBritish elections, which are supposed to hold politicians accountable, don’t seem to fulfill that function very well when it comes to economic policy. A better, more democratic answer would be to seek a better-informed electorate. One really striking thing about the British economic debate is the contrast between what passes for economic analysis in the new media and the consensus of professional economists. Economists should do their job to try to get it right and explain their answers as clearly as they can to influence the outcomes in political elections. It will make a big difference and the political impact will usually be marginal at best.
The weak opposition which has done a terrible job of trying to make its case, and the media which has gotten a lot of the information wrong, are the ones to be blamed for the lack of knowledge on economic policy. To the common voter it doesn’t matter what is achieved in five years, all that matter is that within a year or less the voters see some sort of growth and that income increases. Economists can separate from the political sphere and do what they can to better educate the voters.
ReplyDeleteThe opposition to the British parliament is to blame for the lack of knowledge on economic policy. The opposition makes a terrible job of creating counter arguments to challenge economic political norms. The common voter bases his vote in the election on recent economic growth as opposed to long term results. British elections compare to U.S. elections in that elections are based on recent income growth in the past year.
ReplyDeleteAll economists can do is do there job and make the explainatio as clear as possible. All this economic analysis has a political effect marginally at best. The difference is miniscule which is bad. People will vote off of short term memories and their pocket books even if the effect will be short and on balance the politician has implemented
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of knowledge on economic policy can be blamed on the opposition to the British parliament. The opposition has done a horrible job of creating arguments to counter their opponents and the media is just making the situation worse by spreading wrong information. To the common voter, these policies are based on recent growth rather than long-term results.
ReplyDeleteCompared to the U.S., British elections are more based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term. To influence the outcomes in elections, economists can simply do their job, trying to get the economics right and explain them to people as clearly as possible. It will not make much of a difference because bad things will happen to good ideas and elections only determine who has the power, not the truth.
When it comes to who can be blamed for the lack of economic knowledge within the majority of the citizens, the news media has caused voters to believe in wrong information and this would alter their mindsets. Voters themselves can be blamed to a certain extent as, according to the article, “Voters have fairly short memories, and they judge economics policy not by long-term results but by recent growth.” Even though the past five years of Britain’s economic records were “terrible,” voters would only recognize the past few quarters and if those results were good, the rest did not matter. In a sense, the voters look for recent short term growth rather than what has come along within the long term growth. When comparing the British elections with the U.S. elections, it is apparent that the changes directly before the elections, within a period of less than half a year, can cause a profound effect on the outcome of the actual elections. This implies that if a nation’s leader were to implement a good political policy, there would not be any reward. Knowing this, the leader could go ahead and start a depression during his term and have the remaining few years as a recovery period to increase his image among the voters next time they were to vote. In order to influence the outcome in political elections, economists should remove economic policy making from the political sphere and give the powers to the nonpasrtisan elite commissions. In doing so, this gives power to a more “elite” group of people, assuming that they know what they are doing. Another way to influence election outcome is for economists to find a better informed electorate and in doing so, news media should become better with more accurate information to report on. If these changes were implemented, there would be a profound change in election outcomes because of the new correct information that is being reported about and there would be a better judgement in what economic policy should be carried out with the orders of a more elite group of people.
ReplyDeleteThe one to blame for the lack of knowledge of the economic policy is the opposition to the British parliament. The opposition created a negative job for creating counter measures/arguments to challenge and and oppose economic political norms. To the common voter, he or she will based their vote in the election on the recent economic growth rather than future results. The common voter will prefer to see current results rather than the long term effects. British elections, when compared to U.S. elections, focus more on the recent income growth within the past year.
ReplyDeleteEconomists can only perform their job in relaying to the public the clearest explanation to make a solid statement. The difference would be remotely small to the point where individuals would now vote based on their income and recent events.
Britain's lack of knowledge on economic policy is caused by several people: the weak opposition to the British parliament, the news media and its fecklessness, and the voters who's memory is stuck in the short term. To voters economic policy is based upon recent economic growth as opposed to the long term results. Compared to the U.S., British elections are more based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term. Economists can only continue to do their job and continue to try and better inform the general public. Even then, economists will make little difference because the general public has too short of an attention span and also would struggle to grasp what the economists are saying.
ReplyDeleteThe ones to blame are the weak opposition to the British parliament, the media, and the voters who only look at the short term. Voters only look at the short term. This means they look at the short term results not the long term results of economic policy. British elections are more based on recent income growth over the past year while US elections focus more on the president's term. I believe there's not much economists can do man. All they can do is keep doing their job which is to study the economy and analyze it. They can try to inform the public more but that would make little difference. I believe that would make little difference because the public would still focus on the short term not the long term. The public only looks at the short term man.
ReplyDeleteSeveral parties are at fault for the lack of knowledge on economic polices. Britain's leaders are successfully misleading the population to believe that they are the "guardians of prosperity" when in fact they are part of the reason for the economic problems. Britain's leaders may place on the blame on their opposition for being weak and not having strong arguments. The media is also at fault for getting many reports wrong in reference to the economy. However, the voters themselves are part of the problem for only considering the current economic state rather than the recent history and patterns. They don't look at how the economy has been doing as long as it has been decent within the last year or so. The common voter will make their decision solely on the economic growth in the last 2 quarters even if it was declining for the last 5 years. British elections, like US elections, are dependent on this recent events. Voters around the world only care about now and not about even just a few years ago. All economists can do is try to get it right and figure out the answers. Then they must try to communicate this to the public in a way that people might understand and believe them. They can do this several ways, such as writing an article in the New York Times about it. However, even if they have all the answers and communicate them well, it still may be ineffective unless the politicians and voters begin to understand and agree with the economists.
ReplyDeleteWhile the news media has slanted economic policy, Krugman says the ultimate problem with a lack of voter’s knowledge is the voter’s short-term memory and misinformed beliefs off partisan groups. This means that, while Britain is actually doing worse than it did during the Great Depression in terms of growth since 2007, this doesn’t matter if the economy can prosper the few months before election. Krugman found that political powers that were good in the long-term were easily booted by two bad quarters before the election, despite overall growth. There is also the continual infatuation with the “budget deficit,” which he says is a distraction from the root of the problem.
ReplyDeleteKrugman then compared this to elections in the U.S over the years, based off presidential contests that, rather than focusing on who appeals to independent voters or who wins the news cycle, are judged off income growth before the election.
There are two possible solutions Krugman conjures: we turn the electorate to a nonpartisan elite, though these practices haven’t had the best of luck with their austerity policies. The last solution is to have a better-informed electorate.
Regardless of which solution, it won’t make much of a difference. Because the general population won’t look towards a more in-depth coverage or take part in these “elite” debates. What matters before matters now, even if those two solutions are put into practice, because it matters about the short-term and not the overall growth of the economy.
The author of this article makes the argument that the news media and the short-mindedness of voters are to blame for the supposed lack of knowledge on economic policy.
ReplyDeleteJudgement of economic policies for the average voter is largely based on income growth immediately before an election, according to a large body of political science research. Because of the way that the average voter thinks, elections in both Britain and the U.S. are very similar. In both places citizens vote based off of what is immediately relevant to them, which is the growth rate of their bank accounts.
Paul Krugman thinks that the best way to change this bias is by removing "economic policies from the political sphere". By this he means to create a whole new branch of government that would implement non-partisan economic policies. Krugman thinks that the downfall of an action like this would be that this separate branch, composed of knowledgeable economists, may not agree on the best economic policies, much like many economists do not today.
Another alternative strategy would be to educate the population. This can be achieved by discouraging fallacious information from spreading out of the media, and promoting honest and objective information. This sounds like a fair idea but Krugman later concedes that this would probably not make much of a difference anyway. Krugman closes his argument by writing that what would probably be the best way to change elections would be for economists to do their jobs and "get it right". They would then have the responsibility to dispense this information to the public and hope that it listens.
The opposition to the British Parliament is who to put the blame on when it comes to to lack of knowledge on economic policy. The media can skew information, which can affect what the voter knows and how they vote. Voters tend to be very forgetful, and look to recent conditions in stead of the long-term growth. It is said that the voter will look to the past two quarters of growth, instead of the past 5 years and if the past two quarters were good, then they think nothing is wrong. British elections tend to be based more on economic policy and growth over last year and recent events. It would probably be best if economists were to get economics and politics separated, so economic polices don't get screwed over due to politicking. It would also help if voters became more informed, and watched different news sources than just the ones they are comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteKrugman makes the argument that the news media and the short-mindedness of voters are to blame for the supposed lack of knowledge on economic policy. To the common voter it doesn’t matter what is achieved in five years, all that matter is that within a year or less the voters see some sort of growth and that income increases. British elections are more based on recent income growth over the past year while US elections focus more on the president's term. Krugman says we turn the electorate to nonpartisan elite, though these practices haven’t had the best of luck with their austerity policies. Voters should also become be more informed and watch different news sources. Therefore, it makes a difference in the future elections.
ReplyDeleteBritain's lack of knowledge on economic policy can be attributed to a couple of groups: the weak opposition to the British Parliament, the news media. and even the voters. To the voters, these policies are based upon recent growth results, rather than in the long-term. Over the past few years, British records look terrible, but in the past few quarters it looks good. British elections somewhat compare to U.S elections when it comes to comparing growth. In Great Britain, elections look to the past few quarters while in the U.S, elections look to the economy during the president's term. Economists should try to influence the public mind by reporting on economic issues more often. The reports would most likely make a slight difference, but wouldn't do much on a national scale.
ReplyDeleteBritain doesn't have much knowledge on economic policy which is caused by: opposition to the British parliament, the news media and its fecklessness, and the voters who's memory is stuck in the short term. To voters economic policy is based upon recent economic growth as opposed to the long term results. Compared to the U.S., British elections are more based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term. Economists can only continue to do their job and continue to try and better inform the general public. Even then, economists will make little difference because the general public has too short of an attention span and also would struggle to grasp what the economists are saying.
ReplyDeleteBritish elections, Compared to the United States, are based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term. To influence the outcomes in elections, economists can simply do their job, trying to get the economics right and explain them to people as clearly as possible.
According to Krugman the news media and voters short memory are to blame for their lack of knowledge of economic policy, this is true because the news media tends not to focus on the economic policies of candidates and also the short memory of voter causes them not to research because they only care about their pocket books during the last two quarters. The common voter votes only on how their bank accounts did the very close to the election, Krugman goes as far as saying that it would be a good idea for presidents to throw the country into a depression then close to the election have some good growth and they would probably be reelected. In both Britain and the U.S citizens vote based off of what is relevant to them immediately which is the rate at which their bank accounts grow. Paul Krugman calls educating the population,by discouraging fallacious information from spreading out of the media, and promoting honest and objective information. So economists should try their best to educate the population and explain why their economic theory is right and better than others, if the population were educated than I see no reason why educated people would try and make the most correct vote that is the best for the country so I think it would be successful.
ReplyDeleteThe one to blame for the lack of knowledge of the economic policy is: the opposition to the British parliament and, the news media and its fecklessness and Voters themselves. The opposition created a negative job for creating counter measures/arguments to challenge and and oppose economic political norms. The media makes the situation worse by spreading wrong information.
ReplyDeleteTo the common voter, these policies are based on recent growth rather than long-term results. Compared to the U.S., British elections are more based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term. Economists can only continue to do their job and continue to try and better inform the general public.To influence the outcomes in elections, economists can simply do their job, trying to get the economics right and explain them to people as clearly as possible .Economists can separate from the political sphere and economics or blend them clearly and do what they can to better educate the voters. it can be a great impact. Ignorance holds back progress.
The opposition to the British parliament is the one who is to blame for this lack of knowledge of the economic policy. The opposition is making a terrible job of creating a counter argument to challenge economic political norms. The common voter is basing his vote in the election on the recent economic growth as opposed to the long term results. British elections compare U.S. elections in that elections are based on recent income growth in the past year. All that economists can do is to do their job and make the explanations as clear as possible. All this economic analysis has a political effect marginally at best. People will vote thinking of only their term memories and their pocket books.
ReplyDeleteThe opposition to the British parliament is the one who is to blame for this lack of knowledge of the economic policy. The opposition is making a terrible job of creating a counter argument to challenge economic political norms. The common voter is basing his vote in the election on the recent economic growth as opposed to the long term results. British elections compare U.S. elections in that elections are based on recent income growth in the past year. All that economists can do is to do their job and make the explanations as clear as possible. All this economic analysis has a political effect marginally at best. People will vote thinking of only their term memories and their pocket books.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article you could blame the "weakness of the opposition" and the "fecklessness of the news media" for the lack of knowledge in economic policy. To the common voter these policies are based upon recent economic achievement instead of long term growth in the economy. Compared to the United states, British elections are based upon recent income growth in the past year. In the end, economists have to do a better job on convincing the public to vote for their best interests and to prevent them from voting on politicians based on their wealth.
ReplyDeleteThe one to blame for the lack of knowledge on economic policy would be the weak opposition and the media who continues to jump to conclusions based on their lack of knowledge on economic policy. The common voter sees these policies based on the instant benefits that reap from them, and how these policies can be compared to recent growth rates rather than the potential long-term results they can produce.
ReplyDeleteThe British election process differs from the U.S. as they are based on recent income growth resulted from the past year compared to the U.S. election process based on the President’s office term. In order to help influence the ‘right’ outcomes in an election, economists must work their position while explaining their purposes to the public in a simple manner as possible. There is a possibility that a huge change might not occur as good ideas are usually shot down and elections only shows the person seeking power rather than truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBritain's lack of knowledge on economic policy can be attributed to a couple of groups: the weak opposition to the British Parliament, the news media. The common voter votes only on how their bank accounts did the very close to the election, Krugman goes as far as saying that it would be a good idea for presidents to throw the country into a depression then close to the election have some good growth and they would probably be reelected. Compared to the U.S., British elections are more based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term.Economists can only continue to do their job and continue to try and better inform the general public. Even then, economists will make little difference because the general public has too short of an attention span and also would struggle to grasp what the economists are saying.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of knowledge towards economic policy, I think lies in the hands of the media and politicians. The media and politicians don’t go in depth with policy and only really tell what works in their opinion. Never going into much detail or show much proof other than bashing the current policies while pointing out flaws. These policies are based on recent prosperity rather than economic policy. So rather than voting for economic policies, the voters vote based on whether an economic policy has brought any prosperity. Economists should try to be more influential and try to stand out more in the media and political affairs. The difference may or may not help but it is a step that could help if it works. It’ll allow more votes to be wise ones that voters believe will work rather than what current works.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, the ones to blame for the lack of knowledge of economic policy of the British population is primarily the news media. The issue with the common voter is that they tend to vote on policies based on what makes sense to their personal economic budgeting, which may not be the same policy for what is best for the country's benefit. In the UK voters tend to vote on what the country's income growth, while in the United States voters vote based on the president. Economist should try to make economic information impossible to avoid for voters and with the amount of money put into elections already there should be no lack of funds to get their message out.
ReplyDeleteThe article states that the lack of knowledge of economic policy within the British public is due to the media and short term memories of the British voters. The economic policies as depicted by the British voters are based upon recent economic growth and not the long term growth. Krugman even states that a government can purposefully downturn an economy and in the last year or even six months of the term could create an outstanding recovery and they'll look like heros. British elections are similar to US elections because voters tend to look at income and economic growth that occurred very recently to the election, one year or less. Economists should try to create a way for the news media to get out accurate news information on how the economy is doing at the moment and for the past few years. This could make a huge difference because the voters would be more educated and remember how the economy was three or four years ago.
ReplyDeleteIt is the fault of the media and the blind-acceptance of the voters that causes the lack of information of economic policy. The common voter bases the policies they vote for on their current pocket book and income growth, and for this reason, voters in both Britain and the US have a great resembleance. One method of managing economic policy is to make a separate branch of government that focuses solely on economics, however there would be much debate over the policies even then. An alternate method to better economic policy would be to inform common voters on economics.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, the Media is to blame for the lack of knowledge of economic policy of the British population. The common voter Usually votes on policies based on their own personal economic stand point in society. With this being a factor, their preferences may not be the same policy for what is better for the country. UK voters mainly vote based on what the country's income growth, while in the United States, voters vote based on the party of the representing president. Economist should try to make economic information more apparent so that it would be hard for voters to ignore the truth and where they can form their own views based on their own reality, rather than what they are usually fed.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a time where its not only accepted, but its almost expected for people to not have any idea about economy and about the world as it really operates. Whether here or in Britain, politicians wave fancy banners and slogans and figures, and see their followers amass, without even knowing who they are really rooting for. I think that is what economists should do, educate the masses. I believe that if everyone knew the reality and how the system operates, then plenty of the politicians in power wouldn't be in power. But this would also probably be in effective. People have a very hard time learning. They would much rather hear pretty words and see pretty figures and then just follow mindlessly behind their political leader.its sad.
ReplyDeleteThere are many responsible for the lack of knowledge on economic policy. Many could place the blame on the weakness of the opposition, for not having a sufficient argument against the government policies. Others say the media, which poorly depicts the financial status of the country with misinformation. Voters themselves are part of the “lack of knowledge” situation. To the common voter, policy efficiency is largely determined by recent growth as opposed to long term results. Most voters will make their decision by observing economic growth in the previous two quarters alone rather than look at the whole year.
ReplyDeleteWith this, Great Britain’s leaders are leading the population to believe they are operating as the “Guardians of Prosperity” when in reality; they supposedly leave the country in economic turmoil before tackling these economic problems and orchestrate economic growth just before elections. Much like these British elections, U.S government officials take the same route when dealing with economic problems. Economists must find a way to communicate the state of the country’s economy in a clear, effective way, in a manner that will make it easier for the masses to comprehend. It may not make a large difference, but at least some people will begin to understand the true problems within the economy, and hopefully those few will grow into a large number of educated masses that will demand change.
I think the blame could be placed in many places such as the media, the political party's thens selfs but the real blame I think is on the people for not taking responsibility to do there own investigational research in the party's the vote for. Policy's are based on short term growth and not over all or, long term improvement. As stated in the article the politically smart thing to do would be to put your country is a depressing and take them out right before elections! The speculation is that British have in fact done this! To improve the outcome of election there should be a mandatory education on these subjects such as economy government and finance, the masses would intern be voting less blindly. And our economy Would have no choice but to improve, because we would be voting for Financial integrity and not for the person who looks more dashing in a suit n tie!
ReplyDeleteBoth the media and the voters are to blame for the lack of knowledge of economic policies. Voters have fairly short memories, and they judge economic policy not by long-term results but by recent growth. On the other hand, the media presents a reality coloured and created through corporate interests which reflect their own agendas instead of the truth. To the common voter, what mainly matters is income growth immediately before the election.
ReplyDeleteBritish elections represent a situation that is almost identical not only to the one in the US but all over the world. Voters are forgetful and uneducated, allowing themselves to be easily persuaded by politicians who only appear to have made great economic growth possible.
Krugman presents two ways to change this outcome in elections. The first might be to remove economic policy making from the political sphere and turn it over to nonpartisan elite commissions. However, he turns down this idea by stating that the elite are not much more educated than the general population either way. His second method is to seek a better-informed electorate. News reports often seem like they are making simple assertions of fact, when they are really reporting subjective or false statements. Reporting on economic issues could and should be vastly better. However, political scientists would surely scoff at the idea that this would make much difference to election outcomes, and they’re probably right.
The eminent lack of knowledge on economic policy can be blamed on the opposition to the British parliament. This opposition has done a below par job of creating arguments to go against their opponents and the media is just making the situation worse by spreading wrong information. In the common voters eyes, these policies are based on recent growth rather than long-term results.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to the U.S., British base their elections more on the recent income growth over the past year however U.S. elections focus more on the presidents term. To have an effect on the outcomes in elections, economists can just stick to their "symbiotic script", and try to get the economics right and explain them to people as clearly. Ultimately, the difference is small because bad things usually happen to good ideas anyways and elections only determine who gets to hold the power, sadly not the truth.
The opposition to the British parliament is to blame for the lack of knowledge on economic policy.To voters, economic policy is based upon recent economic growth as opposed to the long term results. Compared to the U.S., British elections are more based on the recent income growth over the past year whereas U.S.So economists should try their best to educate the population and explain why their economic theory is right and better than others. It could make a huge difference if the educated turned from a slim amount to a large number of people.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe author claims that there is a lack of knowledge on economic policy not because of the weakness of the opposition to the policies who have done a terrible job of making a case and the erroneous news media but because of the fact that “voters have fairly short memories, and they judge economic policy not by long-term results but by recent growth.” The people are pretty much ignorant of the world around them and they do not make logical effective decisions so they are to blame. To the common man these policies are based upon what will happen in the short and what they hear from the media.
British elections are very similar to United States elections because people vote for whatever benefits them financially. What happens most recently in the voters mind will tend to decide if the voter will vote for that person again or not. For example, if a president has an amazing run for three and a half years and in the last half a year he implements unfavorable political or economic policy, he will be booted out of office because what he did wrong will be more readily remembered. In order to win elections economists should just simply say what the people want to hear because most of the population is uneducated politically and are ignorant of the actual facts.