WRITING AS A RESPONSIBILITY OF SCIENCE: A REPLY TO LABAND AND TAYLOR

It must have been around 1968, in the coffee room of the Social Science Building at Chicago, that Milton Friedman and the late George Stigler had a jovial and public conversation about being economists that made a big impression on me. Milton was lamenting the stupidity of tariffs, and George broke in, from a foot above, saying something as follows: "Milton, you're such a preacher! If people want free trade they'll get it. If they don't want it, no amount of jawboning by economists will change their minds." "Ah: that's where we differ, George. We admire markets, but you think they've already worked." "And why not? People are self-interested, and they vote their pocketbooks -- that's enough to make the market work. They bought tariffs; tariffs must be what they want." "No: they pursue their interests but often do not know what their interests are. People need education. The average citizen has no idea that a tariff hurts him." "Education! Try educating a lobbyist for the textile industry." "As I said, that's where we differ: I'm a teacher, and think that people do some things because they are ignorant." "And I'm a scientist, an economic scientist; people do what they do because they are wise." Laband and Taylor are Stiglerites. They believe with Dr. Pangloss that we are in the best of all possible worlds. The Friedmanites, which is my own tribe, believe that we could be in it if we would only stop to think. The Stiglerites assume rationality; the Friedmanites teach it. The Stiglerites want to praise the world; the Friedmanites to change it. The Stiglerites detest policy; what is, is. The Friedmanites embrace it; what might be, can be. The Stiglerites are pessimistic, in the manner of the master. The Friedmanites are optimistic. Laband and Taylor, the reader can see, have a pessimistic and Stiglerite explanation of why they have not learned to write competently. They defend themselves against advice such as I give in the original paper by saying that it is "presumptuous of anyone to claim unique knowledge of the marginal benefit to authors of investment in better presentation." If the investment we were talking about was oil drilling, I'd agree with their economics. I've written a book called If You're So Smart that makes a similar point about economic experts going around offering advice. But the investment in question -- here is where Laband and Taylor go wrong -- is economic education. Laband, Taylor, and I are economic educators. In the educational industry we are the oil drillers, the experts. We educate our student roughnecks in the craft, teaching them because we do know better (or else we should not be standing up there TuTh 10:50-12:10). Part of the craft, Laband and Taylor agree, is "attending to elements of presentation." So the initial mistake in their paper is economic. They think that because some advice is silly and misinformed, all advice must be, even advice from teachers to students. Stiglerites tend to drive themselves into such extreme skepticism. But no one can actually live as an extreme skeptic. I'd like to see what Laband and Taylor say to a student who thinks that markets are bad for you -- do they agree mildly that it's just a matter of opinion? Another Stigler story. George opposed requirements in the graduate curriculum at Chicago. Around 1970 he killed off the requirement in the history of thought, which was his own field, and tried repeatedly to kill off economic history (he succeeded in 1980 when I left the faculty). His argument, which is heard in many other departments of economics, was that the graduate students should be free to choose (listen up, Milton). After all, they are just like consumers. What George, and Laband and Taylor, never answered was the Teacher's Point, which Milton made in the discussions about the history of thought requirement. We are teachers. We do know better. Graduate students, because they are not educated already (that's why they are students), often make bad decisions about their curricula. …