Economic Discourse Collapses in the Age of Twitter
Two Fantasy Intellectual stars, one from the center-left and one from the right, are unhappy
But in economics, which I do know well, I think it’s a big issue. If someone tweets something you agree with, it is easy to bless it with an RT or a little heart. To take issue with it is to start a fight. And conversely, it’s much more pleasant to do a tweet that is greeted with lots of RTs and little hearts rather than one that starts fights. So I know from talking to econ PhD-havers that almost everyone is disproportionately avoiding statements they believe to be locally unpopular in their community. There is just more disagreement and dissension than you would know unless you took the time to reach out to people and speak to them in a more relaxed way.
And Tyler Cowen wrote recently,
Explicit schools of thought have since faded — but ideology has not. The new, often unstated dominant ideology is a mix of wokeism and center-left Democratic technocratic policy reasoning.
I am not sure that most economists, who come from many nations and cultures, endorse that approach. They just don’t work very hard against it, and so it is the unstated default norm.
. . .It’s hard to argue that the political biases so evident on Twitter somehow do not infect the academic side of the profession.
As economics has become more ideological, it has also become less forthcoming about its ideologies. And that has led to less intellectual diversity and fewer radical new ideas.
(my emphasis)
Twitter’s mob mentality would be bad if it only suppressed extreme heterodox views, or if the effects were confined to Twitter. But in fact some very respectable economic thinking has disappeared from public discourse. Scott Sumner called this The Great Forgetting.
When dissent was welcomed
As of the 1960s, the conventional wisdom was that we could not have high inflation as long as the economy was far from full employment. But at the end of 1967, Milton Friedman dissented. He proposed a very different hypothesis, in which the trade-off between inflation and unemployment was only temporary. He suggested that after a while the economy would settle at a “natural” rate of unemployment, regardless of how much inflation had been generated.
Several years later, as the experience of the 1970’s played out, many economists came to agree with Friedman’s “natural rate hypothesis.” His monetarist explanation of inflation came to be very widely held.
Not every economist accepted Friedman’s views, nor would I insist that they should have. What I wish to emphasize is that Friedman was able to offer his hypothesis as an major address to the American Economic Association, and it kicked off an extensive debate. There was no social media mob to intimidate Friedman or other economists from advocating policies based on his analysis.
Today, such an economic debate is almost unthinkable. Both Yglesias on the center-left and Cowen on the right see economists silencing themselves in the face of Twitter mobs.
The Twitter mob, and mainstream journalists, have taken us back to 1960’s economic thinking. One can hope that they are right. Perhaps this time will be different, and we will not have a repeat of 1970’s stagflation. But many economists are concerned, and only a few of us have dared to speak out.
Consider The Helicopter Drop, in which I discuss the potential inflationary impact of recent deficit spending. John Cochrane and Larry Summers are two other economists who have made similar arguments. But others are keeping silent. There is nothing like the lively debate that took place following Milton Friedman’s address in 1967.
Improving Discourse
The mob mentality that prevails on Twitter is harming intellectual discourse. This is not just in economics. My Fantasy Intellectual Teams project is an attempt to reward public intellectuals who, like Matt Yglesias and Tyler Cowen, model a more detached and open-minded style of thinking.
I have noticed others who are attracted to the goal of improving intellectual discourse. Examples include Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset, Amanda Ripley’s book High Conflict, and Yascha Mounk’s substack Persuasion. I hope that some of these efforts bear fruit.
Spot on, Arnold. Civil discourse has withered in recent years but I for one will stand against the wind and continue to express views, to critique comments lacking in basic logic, and to question bald assertions on social media and elsewhere from both sides of the aisle, always with civility.
You keep using "left" & "right", but it's not clear what those terms mean in what you're saying.
I'd say Matt is, and claims to be, on the left, solidly Democrat. Admittedly with more acknowledgments of good opposition arguments. Tyler didn't support Trump, and Trump supporters are the vast majority of the "right" today, so Tyler is more center/Libertarian -rightish.
MAGA is, and will be for this decade, the Republican voters; many GOPe are not quite on board with this:
a) strong border controls and opposition to illegal immigration (possibly with less, or more, legal immigration - the key step is enforcement of current laws, first. Learning from Reagan's mistake.
Tyler often wanting more immigration)
b) Opposition to unfair Chinese trade policies, IP theft, and human rights abuses like slavery. Reponses include tariffs and other barriers to trade (Tyler opposes US govt actions despite Chinese govt actions and policies and the trade imbalance).
c) Conservative, pro-life judges (Tyler pretty pro-choice)
d) Tax cuts (Tyler generally supportive).
e) Skepticism of man-made global warming / most proposed reduction policies.
f) Anti-Political Correctness; now Critical Race Theory.
g) Opposition to Obamacare, especially the required individual mandate.
h) Patriotism for America; what is good about the USA, and why it's good.
It's not easy to find "intellectuals" who openly supported and support President Trump's positions, much less him as a person. But he's been the dominant single personality "on the right" since he was elected, and he remains that. Too much is talked about him as a person, or about the undefined "right", and not enough about specific policies.
It's easier to categorize many things into fewer categories so as to generalize, and then one can discuss groups better. The desire, even the academic NEED, to discus groups, groups that are statistically significant, is partly driving out discussion of individuals. We need more discussion that is individual based. And many may support various MAGA policies without supporting them all, and without supporting Trump.
One of the biggest pairs of discontinuities involves the tax cuts and the pro-life policy. Lots of pro-life folk aren't so happy with tax cuts for rich corporations - and many economics who support tax cuts aren't strongly against abortion. When you say "the right", who are you talking about?