Even a free market economist never has to put his money where his mouth is. Like any other economist, the only people to evaluate the results of his work are other economists.
Unlike a marketer or salesperson, he does not have to worry about meeting sales targets.
Unlike a soldier defending from invasion, he does not have to worry about being alive.
Unlike an executive, he does not have to worry about showing a good financial position for his business.
Unlike a day trader or a hedge fund manager, he does not worry about his own money being burned away in huge losses.
Unlike an engineer, he does not have to worry about the bridge collapsing and him never being contracted again.
If we were still in days where kings used to chop off the heads of thinkers for being wrong, it would be okay.
Economists pay no price for being wrong. Ever.
Their job is to obtain endowments for their institutions or think tanks, and once they achieve this objective, their job is over. And they get billions in funding, just by telling George Soros what he wants to hear, by telling the Koch brothers what they want to hear, and so on.
From hereon, all economists should make a living off a long-term betting pool on what may or may nore happen, and those too afraid to bet shall be known as such
Might just be me, but isn’t there something of a conflict with ‘should’ and market solution? Lets suppose some economists make their livelihoods out of telling X person what they want to hear. As long as X person legitimately earned his wealth and truly designates a value to the economist, be he lying or not, signifies the economist has provided a service. Mind you, a service kin to the Department Store Santa Claus who reassures children that they’ll get that gift under the tree, but a service all the same.
There are of course good economists who can make a decent living selling their ideas on the market. Be it through books, lectures, consulting, or stand up comedy.
So nay. Although I wouldn’t mind betting on future market conditions with the average Krugman.
For that matter, there probably isn’t much use for historians and many other social scientists on the free market. Typically people are employed for their “transferrable skills”, so I imagine these disciplines would still remain in a narrow academic form, though much downsized.
Aren’t the sales of books through LvMI, the attendance at events, the Mises Academy, and the interest and interaction of laymen in the community proof enough that economists are in demand by the market?
Do you guys really think there is no place in free markets for an understanding of the consequences of intervention, and the role of money (incl. market money), trade etc? I have to admit, I came to Austrianism late, but I don’t think I could have been born with the understanding I have about economics that I have today.
“Do you guys really think there is no place in free markets for an understanding of the consequences of intervention, and the role of money (incl. market money), trade etc?”
If a free market was the “default” state, then there is just as much a place for that as understanding the consequences of an invasion of extra-dimensional purple alien. So a free society has to defend itself against an invasion of extra-dimensional purple aliens. People can write books about how to keep them out.
Sure, because what they’re really doing is seeking rents. Which companies have the best government subsidies, and how will that change over time. How will advance knowledge of the Federal Reserve’s actions give you an advantage over everyone else.
How will not having knowledge of using and making demand curves help a business when it wants to invest in a new product. I know business and marketing students can do these things just as well, but knowledge in economics is critical when it comes to doing these things.
If Soros or Koch are willing to pay for economists then they must be providing a valuable service. Just because your value judgment is different doesn’t mean they are wrong.