« A Bit of a Rant: My Craftsman Garage Door Opener Has Plastic Gears! | Main | Why Gasoline Follows Oil Up But Not Down »
JLP’s Question of the Day – Government
By JLP | January 18, 2007
Here it is:
I think they should. When I read about the laws that they (both parties) want to pass, it is obvious that they have no idea what they are doing. Well, let me restate that: they have no idea economically-speaking as to what they are doing. Instead they are merely trying to get votes.
Topics: Question of the Day | 14 Comments »
January 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I would agree with your premise EXCEPT that some economics faculty can be pretty loopy. Guarantee that the teachers would at least be reasonably coherent and I would absolutely agree.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I wouldn’t insist on a degree, but I’m intrigued at the idea of a “certified politician”. Why limit it to just economics though? Science, education, and civil engineering are all subjects about which a “competant” pol should know something.
Everything except theology.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
You could always form a nonpartisan panel to study the economic feasibility of potential laws, ala the Iraq Study Group.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
There are a few things I think should be required of politicians:
1. Significant private-sector work experience, preferably doing something other than being a lawyer.
2. Ideally, some experience running a small business.
3. Experience being non-wealthy (too many “Noble Born” politicians nowadays, on both sides of the aisle)
4. Knowledge of economics, science, and statistics.
5. A well-honed “BS detector”, so they don’t get rolled by bureaucrats or lobbyists.
6. I’d prefer military experience, although some interest in military-related affairs would be sufficient.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Wouldn’t we just have a bunch of politicians with economic degrees doing things to get votes?
January 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I agree with Him.
And I absolutely disagree with JLP. Requiring any kind of degree would be a HUGE barrier to becoming elected, would require an amendment to change the constitution, and is unethical. Why shouldn’t someone who can’t afford a college degree run for office? Or someone who can’t afford two college degrees.
However, I do support the idea of all incoming elected officials having to take a several week long seminar covering diverse topics including economics, statistics, the constitution, American demographics, etc. Also a shorter refresher course for re-electees. Attendence would be mandatory (if you don’t come that is the same a resigning).
January 18th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I don’t think this is a good idea, either. Edenz its the nail on the head. I want a wide range of people representing this country. I don’t want any sort of homogeneity. A required economics seminar might be good, but in general, I think we need more variety among our politicians, not less.
January 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Okay, maybe a “degree” is a little strong. However, I do think that politicians NEED an understanding of economics.
January 18th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Being a cynical sort of chap, I wonder if it would make any difference. Political decisions are made, IMO, by the dollar effect they have on the various interest groups involved. I don’t think that economic theory enters into it much, other than as an argument used by one or both sides.
Rather than worrying about having an economics degree, perhaps affirmative action for congresspersons would be better. A certain quota of economists and engineers, to lower the preponderance of lawyers in the Congress. (I know that is unconstitutional, but a fella can dream.)
January 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
My crazy idea has often been to replace an elected Congress with one appointed at random from the general population, possibly keeping the Senate elected to keep it from getting too wierd. The appointees would be appointed in the same fashion that juries are selected, although they could decline if they wanted; pay would have to be high enough to provide a good incentive to serve. The point is to get a truly representative sample of the population at a level at which it could have an impact on law-making. My feeling is that representative democracy is groaning under the weight of sheer scale, and is turning into a cloistered, increasingly inherited elite that has little contact with “reality on the ground”.
My thought would be the appointees would serve 8 year terms, with a 2 year nonvoting period while they learn the ropes. 1/4 of the group would be replaced every two years.
January 18th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
“they have no idea economically-speaking as to what they are doing.”
I disagree. I think they do know what they are doing. They feel they or their constituents “deserve it” regardless of the impact to everyone through higher taxes due to government waste.
January 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I’m not sure that having a degree or seminar in economics would help as they still need to get re-elected and reflect to some degree the wishes and interests of their constituency regardless of what they believe is the right thing to do.
I think it would be more helpful if everyone had better knowledge of economics/statistics/environment etc so they were less inclined to request things that would be bad overall.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Foobarista: That idea is called “election by lot” and is how they filled some offices in ancient Greece. It’s also how our jury system works.
Of course, if the complaint in this thread is that elected officials know too little about economics, I garuntee that “election by lot” would produce worse results then voting. But that’s the inherent tension of democracy: move the system too close to the people and you get bad policy, insulate it too much from the people (longer terms of office, age or educaiton requirements, indirect election a la the electoral college) and you might get better policy, but you get less democratic decisions.
January 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“I think they should. When I read about the laws that they (both parties) want to pass, it is obvious that they have no idea what they are doing. Well, let me restate that: they have no idea economically-speaking as to what they are doing. Instead they are merely trying to get votes.”
A rational choice economist would realize that that’s exactly what the system is set up to do. Politicians have one incentive: get votes so they can get reelected.
The economics comes in because one of the best ways to get votes is to have a good economy (in fact, models based soley on economic factors do a pretty good job of predicting presidential eleciton outcomes). Politicians thus have an incentive to produce a good economy. The fact that there are other ways to get votes messes things up, but also reflects the fact that peole values things other than raw economic growth.