Economics don’t matter in today’s election.
At least, they don’t matter to me.
There are smart people who think Obama’s economic plan is better for America. There are smart people that think Romney’s plan is better. We have some idea of Obama at work, and with Obama at the helm the economy has improved gradually since the Wall-street induced recession of 2008. But maybe you think Romney could make the recovery go faster. Who knows? My own opinion is that we are crossing a stream, and by all indications the horse we’re on is slow but he’s getting there. But maybe you’d rather switch to an untested and mercurial horse instead. I don’t really know which horse would be better, from an economic standpoint.
Let’s be honest. You don’t know either.
Oh, there are a few people who claim to understand the economic issues involved. But let’s face it, “experts” can’t really pick stocks better than monkeys or dartboards. Why do we expect the American economy to be any more tractable? In the language of mathematics, the economy is a chaotic system. Any small change in policy is likely to produce unpredictable results. So when you pick a candidate based on “economic principles” you’re really just saying “I believe this candidate’s meaningless economic rhetoric more than the other guy’s meaningless economic rhetoric.” If you have a PhD in economics, maybe I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt…but if you’re a truck driver, or a doctor, or a waitress, or a welder, then your ideas about the economy are probably total bullshit.
I am a physicist. My ideas about the economy are bullshit.
Ever play one of the Civilization computer games, such as Civilization V? If you have, you see how complicated and interconnected every decision is. You have to juggle money, and the happiness of citizens, and threats foreign and domestic, and culture, science…the tiniest decisions can have huge ramifications, and no monolithic blanket ideology will get you to the promised land of victory. It’s a balancing act. Sometimes you have to raise taxes. Sometimes you have to cut them. Sometimes you increase education, sometimes you build infrastructure, sometimes you go to war, sometimes you seek a diplomatic solution.
If the pundits are to be believed, being president is simpler than this. Just drink the Flavor Aid, follow the party line, and everything will be great. Being president is as simple as doing everything that Rush Limbaugh (or Michael Moore) says.
I don’t buy it. And if you’re honest with yourself, you won’t either. Just say it to yourself: “I know nothing about economics. I know nothing about economics.”
Why is it that people who admittedly know nothing about chemistry, poetry, physics, differential equations, music theory, pottery, animal husbandry, statistics, number theory, ancient history, modern Japanese culture, biology, leatherworking, genetics, Shakespeare, phonetics, linear algebra, astronomy, geology, philosophy, music history, Greek, marketing, calculus, modern history, evolution, quantum mechanics, medicine, world religions, and engineering, think that they know anything about complex economic issues?
(Not you, Ken Rogoff. I know you know economics.)
Why is it that people who are ignorant of 99% of the world’s body of knowledge still have strong beliefs concerning tariffs or debt ceilings or free trade agreements or progressive taxes? Let me be frank: if you don’t know what something is, you have no logical right to an opinion about it. (Do you think that decoherence is sufficient to explain effective wave collapse, a la the Copenhagen interpretation? Or do you feel that, ultimately, some non-local theory will gives us the loophole we need to sweep Bell’s Theorem under the table? I didn’t think so.) Just once I’d like to see a fry cook from Burger King say, “I have no opinion regarding stimulus money…I don’t understand all the complex economic concepts involved…but you know, the Thirty Year’s War was less about Catholic/Protestant bickering and more about the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry.”
So. The economy shouldn’t matter in your voting decision. So where does that leave you?
Well, what’s left are social issues. Issues like civil rights for the LGBT community, civil rights for women, civil rights for immigrants, the failed war on drugs, the continuing (attempted) theocratization of America. I can’t in good conscience vote for a party that denies the fact of global warming (and here’s where I will play the “PhD in physics” card), the fact of evolution, the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. The Republicans give every impression that they are the anti-science party, the anti-women party, the party of a solely-Christian America, the party of Wall Street. If that is not the case, it is still true that very few Republicans distance themselves from such stances.
If you vote for Romney, don’t hide behind the “I just prefer his economic policies” defense. At least have the courage of your convictions. Say what you truly are, and why you prefer the Republican social nonsense.
I am a liberal, in the best sense of the word: the world could be better, and we have a long way to go.
What are you?
Many Worlds Theory 
I voted for Romney and have little interest in his social policies. Notwithstanding your view about economic theory, most people vote their current economic plight. Business in our office has fallen off the cliff in the last 4 years. My health care premiums have tripled. I have never seen so many for sale/for lease signs for businesses in my entire life. I live in one of the richest counties in the richest state in the country. Perhaps as a matter of macro economics it may be theoretically unreasonable for me to hold this against the incumbent, but this is how people have voted throughout history. While I am not a phd in economics I have read theory from both Keynsians and supply siders. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. Republicans have endorsed Keynsian plans in the past. Instead of spending $850B on what amounted to a random set of pork barrel programs, had he spent half that sum updating the power grid it would have put people to work in every state and there would have been a tangible benefit to society even if it failed as a stimulus. I am consciously saying “he” because it was Obama’s plan and he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate when it passed. No effort was made to curry support from the Rs. Think the interstate highway endorsed by Eisenhower and the Hoover Dam first endorsed by Coolidge. As for social issues, I probably agree with your positions on many of them, though I don’t believe Romney is anti-women at all. I hope that comment stems from the heat of the political season. I think it’s fine to subscribe to the left’s views on women’s issues if that is your choice, but there is another side to each issue which millions of women also support.
Romney has said nothing about the subservient role of women in his religion. He has also not repudiated Akin and that other senate bozo whose name I can’t recall. Maybe Romney is just being quiet not to alienate his strong anti-women base (if you’re anti-woman you’re probably for Romney) but the very fact that Romney is silent on these issues is a sign of moral cowardice.
By the way, voting your current economic plight is embracing the “one data point” paradigm.
Both of those Senate candidates gave ridiculous responses in debate situations. If they believed what they said then they are idiots. I think one of the guys restated his answer afterwards, though I don’t recall whether it was a retraction. Even an absolutist issue like abortion has nuances. Most pro choice people oppose partial birth abortions. Most pro life people make the rape/incest/life of mother exceptions. The “no exceptions” people are the most consistent of anyone, though I reject their view. My larger point is that a fair percentage of women are pro life or are ok with abortion in only limited situations. They arent “anti-women”. Polling consistently shows that voters are now 50/50 on abortion, where they were strongly pro choice in the 80s. My take on that is that many people accept the balance of interests that the Supreme Court has carved out over the years. Anyway, there are a number of other issues. Pay equality is important but having jobs is a precondition to that. Incidentally, there is a huge pay disparity between what women earn in the White House and men. Romney actually did a better job hiring women as a governor than Obama has done.
I think people vote based on a balance of their economic plight, foreign policy, and social issues. Few of us have PhDs in any of these issues, but we have to have some inherent faith that if each person votes based upon his or her “happiness quotient”, which is a balance of the 3 main categories, that the greatest good will be served over time.
Thanks, I hope you enjoy my post. I’m keeping it up for a few days so rrdeeas can really appreciate it. Supporting local Dems because my feelings are hurt? Oh wah wah, poor me. I don’t think so and if you haven’t figured out yet that it has nothing to do with my hurt feelings, you might as well quit reading because you’re not going to get it.I only support the candidates WHO DON’T SUPPORT BIG GOVERNMENT, no matter what their party affiliation. At the local level, it seems that the Republicans want to grow the size of government and spend more money. At the National level, the Democrats do that. Government does not create jobs, the private sector does. Having more people on public assistance, food stamps does not make for a strong economy. Go see 2016 the movie and then let’s talk more.As for the Dems supporting Chris Gibson? Terrific. I guess that just proves that some people besides me do not vote just Party line, but instead vote for the better candidate.
I’ll just say that an anti-women position can still be supported by plenty of women. For example, plenty of women were against suffrage in 1900. But denying women the vote is an anti-women position.
More women have voted than men since 1980 and the gap is widening. In the macro sense women’s issues should be well accounted for, particularly as more women are elected to office. This may not translate to perfect adherence to either party’s platforms.
[…] with most hits: Economics don’t matter […]
[…] some preconceived notion about my politics, then I am very liberal on social issues. (As I’ve mentioned in the past, I literally don’t have an opinion on many complicated economic issues.) I’m strongly […]
Keep description up to 250 characters and avoid using all
capital letters. That’s not all you can do with the data, by putting
bits and pieces together of your search history, they can build an individual profile, which is getting easier to do today.
The amount that has to be paid is included only in the search ads.
[…] [An updated version of a post from 2012 which first appeared here.] […]