= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Larks comments on The Stable State is Broken - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
"Scientists and economists advise politicians" is not quite the same as "scientists and economists indirectly control policy." In practice, in the US, most advisors who are not also politicians are pitted against an equal and opposite party and then ignored. That is not universally true and it is not the only problem with the US government by a long shot, but it is a significant effect.
As for the Chinese government, you were more or less right until relatively recently. They were fairly successful too (which is not the same thing as being nice, of course).
You expect this in equilibrium regardless of how far you are from the counterfactual with no economists, so this is not evidence either way.
Not following you there. In a mostly functional government I would expect to see either politicians with additional domain knowledge and few advisors or pure government functionaries with many advisors who had significant sway in their area of expertise. The current situation seems indicative of a particular ideological influence combined with the aforementioned career politician phenomenon.
I am not asserting a lack of economists - just a lack of influence over policy-in-practice.