Klein:

Whatever the reason, the disconnect isn’t exactly a reassuring demonstration of the market’s logic and rationality.

I don’t get this. What did the markets do to Ezra? There is a difference between being a Republican or a conservative and appreciating economics–often a very large one. Economists (the scientists, not the sold-out policy flacks) don’t advocate markets because they love markets (although they might); they advocate markets because the field’s best research has supported the functionality of markets for a long, long time. But economists also recognize that there are lots of times when markets seem wrong, or broken, or strange, and there are journals full of papers on why these things happen or why we don’t understand why they happen.

Trying to figure out whether markets have done something on a few isolated dates over more than a century is kind of a problematic enterprise. What markets are we talking about? Within those markets, which securities moved most, and can some of that movement have been explained by other factors? What was the five-day return on the markets; was some of the gain immediately given back? What kind of statistical significance are we looking at? What other hypotheses are consistent with those findings? I haven’t seen the report, so I can’t say.

I imagine Ezra can’t either. There is a good chance that these findings are essentially inconclusive. There’s a reasonable chance that the Bloomberg story misinterprets what the authors found. And there’s a decent chance that there is a rational explanation for whatever movements were found–if this marginally increased the probability of increased future corporate profits, for instance. Instead, we get a post grossly underexplaining the report, mentioning bad GOP policies, and concluding that markets don’t work. Well played.

I understand when the general public doesn’t get economics. It’s a complicated subject that’s deliberately misrepresented to the public by paid hacks. I don’t understand when well-meaning pundits who have, I imagine, only the best public policy intentions treat the subject like alchemy. You want people to unionize? Why? Are unions the end or the means? If they’re the means, then let’s think about this, and understand what the costs and benefits of increased unionization are, relative to other policy options. Ditto for trade. Ditto for tax policy. Ditto for housing policy and health care policy and so on. Because I couldn’t care less about unions for the sake of unions. I care about reducing inequality (in the US and globally) and improving living standards while sustaining growth. And if Democrats want to be the good party, the party on the correct side of history, then they should work for good policies whether or not they are the Democratic policy.

I realize that the above diatribe is wholly unjustified given the original post that I’ve cited here. And truthfully, there’s no possibility of me ever voting Republican, for lots of different reasons, one of which is their inability to understand economics (coupled with a real desire to achieve pretty much the exact opposite of what I’ve said are my end goals).

But this is something that pains me. We’re supposed to be the thoughtful party, the party of nuance, the party of good public policy, the party of intellectuals and science, and yet, when it comes to economic issues, we’re often as dumb and as craven as the GOP is on, you know, everything. I hear Democrats tell me, you know, free trade works great in theory, and I’m like, what are we talking about? Creationism? You want to find the best option and put a political spin on it to sell it? Hey, I’m all for that. But don’t sacrifice progress for talking points and orthdoxy.

End screed. Sorry about that Ezra. I just became a PhD student today. I’m filled with occupational pride.