[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
In my experience, most economists overwhelmingly oppose almost any policy to help the poor and the middle class, especially if it is seen as harming the wealthy, for whatever reason they can get their hands on. There are a few exception, Robert Reich for example, but that’s what they are, exceptions. Makes it difficult for me to buy the notion that economists are politically neutral. Pretty much impossible, really.
[/QUOTE]
Economists aren’t neutral. They’re people, and they have opinions, and their specialty is so closely related to politics that it’s incredibly difficult for many of them, maybe most of them, to separate their objective findings from their subjective political views. But economics, the scientific discipline, is neutral.
But first, let me say that I don’t blame you for failing to make the distinction. The bad reputation of economics is, in my opinion, entirely well deserved.
Second, let me say that I have but a lowly BA in econ, and so I am not an expert. But I continue to read about it, study it on the side, and try to update my views on issues as the evidence comes in.
So first let me divide “economics” the science from “economics” the bullshit cutting-taxes-is-always-good cult. This is an incredibly difficult distinction for lay audiences to discern, because the two groups use nearly identical terminology, and members of the two groups are, in fact, mostly trained in the same institutions. And it’s possible to have cultish views and yet also produce sound research.
But one group consists of scientists: people who use a rigorous inductive/deductive methodology in order to figure out how the world works. And in fact, there are many issues about which the vast majority of economists, over 90%, pretty much agree. Free trade has traditionally been, as previously stated, one of those issues (though NAFTA hasn’t helped Mexico near as much as was predicted, so there are some grumblings that might become more mainstream as more evidence on trade becomes available and more research is done).
The second group consists of whores: people who sell their expertise for money. These are paid shills. Big corporations have a strong demand for a political environment in which there are fewer regulations and lower taxes, and so (according to economic theory itself), there will be a supply created (the cult of whores) that meets this demand. Anyone who claims that cutting taxes will always increase tax revenue is speaking out their ass. And yet at least one conservative publication actually refuses to consider, as editorial policy, the possibility that the downward shift in the Laffer Curve is not in effect at American levels of taxation.
This leads us to situations like the CAFE standards debate, where regulating the auto industry with mandatory miles-per-gallon minimums is obviously not the best idea to reduce carbon emissions. Anyone with even the slightest bit of training in public sector economics (public finance) knows that these regulations will be less effective, and more economically harmful, than a carbon emissions tax.
A carbon tax could potentially be economically helpful when you study the possible externalities of coastal cities underwater and the farm belt moving northward because of future droughts in current agricultural areas. But how do the cultists respond? Oh noes! Not a tax! Taxes are eeeeeevil! And so the liberals, in their attempt to do something about the problem, impose stricter CAFE standards on an industry that is already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy (alright, alright, the standards aren’t to be implemented for a while - still not the best move, economically speaking).
And so we’re left with a second rate solution to a problem with an incredibly obvious fix.
This is why, when people ask my views, I tell them to read “liberal” economists, e.g. Paul Krugman from the New York Times. The Republicans in Congress resist any and all efforts to regulate, even when some regulations make good economic sense. This means that if we’re gonna fix a problem, our responsibility is to educate liberals on economic issues to redirect their zeal in the restructuring of society, to try to get them to do smart things (carbon taxes) instead of dumb things (CAFE standards).
And there are, if you look careful enough, a goodly number of these “liberal” economists. In fact, I’d have to disagree with the OP’s belief that most of the scientists are “conservative”. My impression of the professors I had was that they were something like regulatory libertarians; most of them seemed to believe in regulation, but they wanted it done with a minimum of market interference.
So my suggestion: if you want an introduction to real economists, start reading the articles and blogs of people like Krugman. They don’t represent all of valid scientific thought, of course, but they’ll give you an introduction to the topic that you should be able to digest in order to develop a more economically rigorous way of looking at things.
Most people seem to just want what’s best for them.