Iâm confused as to whether the character of the project is (1) An epistemic project to make economics research more accessible and transparent or (2) A political project to promote specific areas of economic research that we believe are not accurately represented in current consensus, possibly in the hope of accelerating economic system change.
This announcement is giving me (1) vibes, whereas the newsletter is giving me (2) vibes.
Personally, I share Harrisonâs concerns. I think if the project is (2), these concerns are much more pressing than if the project is (1), as I expect a washout effect as more topics get added to correct for what may be biases of the founders. But based on the website, I am relatively confident that the project is (2) - the website specifies wanting to accelerate a âparadigm shiftâ, and prominently displays a quote about the problematic nature of western capitalism.
Two give just two examples illustrating my concern with the newsletter.
The graphs that stipulate the badness of the âneoliberal turnâ omit the massive economic growth we saw in previous decades, which eradicated a significant fraction of extreme global poverty. It does so by focusing its graphs on the US. But many people believe the main benefit of the âneoliberal turnâ was not to people in the US, but to the global poor! A neutral approach to the project would at least highlight the possibility that the neoliberal turn also is seen as having benefited a large number of people outside of the US.
UBI is posited as an alternative concept to the âneoliberal systemâ. This juxtaposition strikes me as oddâin the American context, neoliberals such as Milton Friedman (plausibly an architect of the âneoliberal turnâ) publicly advocated for UBI. A neutral approach to the project would at least highlight that while some neoliberals have advocated for a UBI, the project hasnât made it off the ground.
I donât want to be overly criticalâI am glad this project exists, and am happy to see more accessible and transparent economic data. But I want to highlight that there may be a significantly higher value if the project takes a neutral approach to economic schools and systems instead of following a line of thought or narrative that the founders (maybe correctly) take to be the right one.
Iâm confused as to whether the character of the project is (1) An epistemic project to make economics research more accessible and transparent or (2) A political project to promote specific areas of economic research that we believe are not accurately represented in current consensus, possibly in the hope of accelerating economic system change.
This announcement is giving me (1) vibes, whereas the newsletter is giving me (2) vibes.
Personally, I share Harrisonâs concerns. I think if the project is (2), these concerns are much more pressing than if the project is (1), as I expect a washout effect as more topics get added to correct for what may be biases of the founders. But based on the website, I am relatively confident that the project is (2) - the website specifies wanting to accelerate a âparadigm shiftâ, and prominently displays a quote about the problematic nature of western capitalism.
Two give just two examples illustrating my concern with the newsletter.
The graphs that stipulate the badness of the âneoliberal turnâ omit the massive economic growth we saw in previous decades, which eradicated a significant fraction of extreme global poverty. It does so by focusing its graphs on the US. But many people believe the main benefit of the âneoliberal turnâ was not to people in the US, but to the global poor! A neutral approach to the project would at least highlight the possibility that the neoliberal turn also is seen as having benefited a large number of people outside of the US.
UBI is posited as an alternative concept to the âneoliberal systemâ. This juxtaposition strikes me as oddâin the American context, neoliberals such as Milton Friedman (plausibly an architect of the âneoliberal turnâ) publicly advocated for UBI. A neutral approach to the project would at least highlight that while some neoliberals have advocated for a UBI, the project hasnât made it off the ground.
I donât want to be overly criticalâI am glad this project exists, and am happy to see more accessible and transparent economic data. But I want to highlight that there may be a significantly higher value if the project takes a neutral approach to economic schools and systems instead of following a line of thought or narrative that the founders (maybe correctly) take to be the right one.
Edited to reflect a closer look at the website.