There are many unrespectable economists in professorial positions and used to advise government policy (see those of Reagan, Thatcher et al), so sadly yes. Furthermore, the politicians or political advisers who ultimately make government economic policy tend to have at most a BA in economics, hence have been indoctrinated in the most simplistic of these dismal ideas without the benefit of more sophisticated epistemological thinking.

So Milton Friedman is unrespectable?

Yes he is. The S&L crisis and the global financial crisis are both largely the product of his ideas.

> tend to have at most a BA in economics

Or worse in the UK where they all went to Oxford and got a PPE.

to be fair, the Oxford PPE contains one of the better economics courses, although dependent on which tutors you have in your college. Nonetheless, there is a significant minority of no-chin toffs who have no business being there except for their school and connections (See most of the Tory party).

u partisan bro?

> Do any actual respectable, academic or working economists make these arguments though?

I like this question. I try to use it on myself. It gets to the core of some of our responses. I.e. we should opine with evidence when we can. But I would suggest one slight change.

> Are any academic or working economists who make these arguments in positions of power?

I'd say yes. E.g. economists working for The Heritage Foundation for example.

Can you give an example of this kind of argument being made by an economist affiliated with The Heritage Foundation?

Stephen Moore is one individual from there notorious for his willingness to talk out of his ass, making specious claims about Obamacare and still pushing supply side economics.

"Do any actual respectable, academic or working economists make these arguments though?"

I believe working economists are more nuanced and critical than what filters through the medias and politicians. I've been trying to teach myself some economics. For instance, I read Mankiw's "Principles of Economics", a widely-used introductory college textbook and I find it balanced. The author tries to convey different points of view and warns the reader about the limitations of the field.

Actually, I've even found Milton Friedman in "Freedom and Capitalism" to be more critical of capitalism that I'd have expected (e.g. concerning monopolies and externalities, I read it a while ago though).

> found Milton Friedman in "Freedom and Capitalism" to be more critical of capitalism that I'd have expected (e.g. concerning monopolies and externalities, I read it a while ago though).

He's against government-enforced monopolies; market capture is fine by him (because surely an upstarted would disrupt the incumbent & wouldn't be subject to anti-competitive actions that kill their business).

I don't know - i would think not. Thats why I think its a failure of education - Econ 101 teaches you to make arguments like this, and non-majors will only ever take Econ 101! Those simple and wrong ideas spread.

Agree about the politicization of other fields of science too. Maybe it is more of a political problem in econ too.. thats hard :(

I get the impression that although respectable economists are aware the real world is complicated, to get published and taken seriously they have to put maths and equations in their papers hence the spherical cows. But economic behaviour at the base is human behaviour and whether someone is going to overpay to flip a condo in Florida is fundamentally down to their thinking, not some equation. But the human stories get kind of ignored in favour of the maths.

It's a bit like why people still publish in Elsevier in spite of them being awful - it's because it's how you get on in your career. Similarly differential equations about spherical cows get you promoted.

> Do any actual respectable, academic or working economists make these arguments though?

"Respectable" is questionable, but the economists that do are invariably motivated by ideology.