Re: The Mind of Paul Krugman: Mahathir, Pinochet, bad men, good policies - and the 'job of economic analysts'

[Kenneth Campbell <kkc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Jurriaan's essay is pretty damn good.

It is loaded with academic journalese -- probably designed to engage
those on this list -- but, so conceded, skillfully done.

In law, there is the same problem: "Do this task" and ignore everything
else -- which J stated as being, for economists, "if X is your goal,
then given the best evidence we have, Y is the objectively the best
policy to achieve the goal, and Z does not achieve the goal."

But all our employment tasks are limited by the scope of their
definition. That does not limit what we are, in the doing. (Does not
have to, at the least.)

And I do not doubt there are many Krugman's out there who would like to
acknowledge socialist models... if there was a model and task at hand.
Meanwhile, they just do their jobs... like others...

Ken.

P.S. The comment: "Confusion sets in when 'objectivity' is conflated
with 'neutrality' or 'impartiality'. You can be objective in having due
regard for all the relevant evidence, have a genuine scientific concern
with truth, but that does not mean you're not partisan. Not taking a
position is also a position, it's a position which says 'I don't want to
concern myself with these issues.'" True. By the very fact that your are
looking at the issue means you are affecting it. It's the
observer-observed metaphor. But we, in doing our jobs, like to distance
ourselves from the influence we have on things.