Does this mean Dogbert would be Vice President?
From the Dilbert blog:
I decided to start my own political party. I call it the Economics Party. There’s no paperwork involved, and you don’t even have to stop being a Democrat or Republican or whatever to join. The Economics Party won’t have its own candidates. All we’ll do is agree to vote for the candidate with the best long term economic policy, according to the consensus of leading economists.
The Economics Party would ignore superstition in its decisions. Here are a few things I think would end up on the platform, assuming most leading economists agree:
– Withdraw from Iraq
– More aggressive energy policy (back off on ethanol)
– More sane tax policies
– Limited government
– Legalize doctor assisted suicide
– Keep abortion legal
– Decriminalize marijuana
– Strong education policyWe’d make some exceptions for humanitarian reasons. For example, if a natural disaster hits a poor part of the country, it might be cheaper to let everyone die, but you have to put life ahead of money at some point.
The platform might look Libertarian, but it has differences. For example, a Libertarian might be opposed to the government making people wear motorcycle helmets. The Economics Party would just look at the likely higher cost of insurance in a helmet-free world and decide on that basis. I don’t know which way it would come out.
The Economics Party would be committed to changing its policy recommendation whenever the facts warranted. We’re pro flip-flop when it makes sense. In other words, our brains function properly.
If thirty or forty million people join the Economics Party, all major candidates would have to start paying attention to the consensus of economists. At the very least, voters would become more aware of what the leading economists think makes sense. That seems like a good thing.
Are you in?
Do I have a campaign song for him.
Hat tip: Eric Green
13 Responses
@Anonymous: I see two economic arguments for legal abortion. (1) If it’s not allowed, most of the kids whose birth is no longer prevented will be born to poor parents, making them likely welfare burdens and/or criminals. (2) If it’s not allowed, coathanger abortion will reappear, resulting in expensive medical emergencies, not to mention the cost of keeping people in jail.
On the other hand, the long-term cost of more people on our planet is negative: that is, they are beneficial (see “The Ultimate Resource” by Julian Simon, who was Jimmy Carter’s secretary of the treasury).
But seriousness aside: it’s neat to see Dilbert’s (and his creator’s) real intelligence finally come to the fore. Now if we can only get the EP to talk about the environmental movement….
This is very amusing. Its bad enough now that we are RULED (not governed) by elitists-generally members of the Bar Association.
Adams would, in theory replace the existing legal hegemony for an economic one.
Worse, Mr. Adams seems to want to displace the vulgarities of our democracy with tyranny, and he seems to base this on the faulty assumptions that economics is the only way to inform public policy. Moreover, his preliminary platform presupposes a monolithic viewpoint among economists on issues (abortion, war) that don’t exist and are not merely economic propositions.
(quick: name an economist other than Phil Gramm who had a notable political career)
Having worked for a vendor to Scott’s former employer (Pac-Tel, we regularly spoke with people that knew him. The consensus was that he was talented but the ability to preceive the many inanities of corporate life were borne of a rather poorly developed ability to play well with others…
Would this mean that natural resource wars would be justified if they passed the cost-benefit test?
Oh, and my favorite part is, “You have to put life ahead of money at some point.”
At some point…?
Not unlike the democrats, within 10comments the economics party platform breaks down!
The post and posters seem to be confused. Money or even wealth are not the only costs and benefits in economic analysis.
I’m pretty sure humanitarian aid can be justified by way of economics. Because each life saved is an earner/producer/spender saved.
While I agree with everything on this “platform,” I disagree that everything has to do with economics. Much of it seems like standard libertarian fare (abortion, assisted suicide, etc). That’s a political platform, not an economic platform. If you want it to be economic, cool, make it economic. Free trade, smart energy, no war on drugs, etc., better tax structure (oh boy…), but ditch the political stuff.
According to ER doctors I’ve talked to, if you aren’t wearing a helmet when you crash, your medical bills aren’t too expensive. Because you’re dead.
I’m not sure what the economic argument for leaving Iraq is either. One could argue that long term the costs of leaving Iraq outweigh the benefits. Whether this argument makes sense or not depends on whether Iraq would fall apart without us, what would happen if it does fall apart, whether Iran would step in and what it would do with the extra oil if it did so, etc. In other words, the cost-benefit calculation really has very little to do with economics. Economics can help us calculate the cost to the treasury, which is a fairly simple task, but it can’t help us calculate the benefits.
How about the Econotarian Party!
Perhaps the cost of enforcing abortion laws + medical costs from botched abortions? Then there’s the abortion decreases crime controversy…
Really, though, simple cost-benefit analysis (not sure if that’s what Adams is basically suggesting) can get really scary when you divorce it from any system of morals. Also, it’s not clear to me whether this “party” would only consider the utility of the US, or of all human beings. If it’s the second, then we’d end up with some pretty radical policy. If it’s the first, then I’d like to know the justification.
@Anonymous: EXACTLY. Posting of the EP platform should NOT be taken for an endorsement. I think I like Dilbert better in cartoon.
What is economics-based argument for legalized abortion?