Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
The Amplifier
7745 Followers
the Grey Ghost of 2010
990 Followers
Jimmy Walker
2259 Followers
Michael Westen
2691 Followers
ferretmanJan 11, 2011
Yes.
dauntless1Jan 12, 2011
Yes, they should. Bias is absolutely capable of making you unfit to render competent or truthful decisions.
Only idiots approve of bias.
scarredupJan 12, 2011
Or those with an agenda.
warped0neJan 12, 2011
Yes. If there's any questions as to why, see corporate donations to US politicians and the effects they have on public policy.
purpletentacleJan 12, 2011
Also, union donations to politicians and the effects they have on public policy.
3the3dude3Jan 12, 2011
You shouldn't have been dugg down. You're just as correct as warped0ne.
eraptorJan 12, 2011
Yes, union donations have an effect on public policy, but this amount is easily dwarfed by opposing corporate/other special interest group donations. As a result, unions rarely get their way and the legislative record is proof.
purpletentacleJan 12, 2011
Should they reveal who pays them? Yes. Should they reveal what political beliefs they subscribe to? Yes. Should they sign a code of conduct? Pointless. This line sums up why: "It urges the group to adopt a formal code of ethics, much like what doctors, lawyers and journalists follow." A code of ethics hasn't done anything for lawyers and journalists and I can't imagine it would make a world of a difference here. Have them state who pays them and who they voted for and people can figure out what lens to read their statements with.
krystalc54Jan 12, 2011
Absolutely!! so we can get hold of them and ask for jobs!! that is where the disastrous enonomic policies come from, atleast we know why it dosnt make a difference to them!!!
tibugJan 12, 2011
It doesn't matter, because economists are slaves to an impossible science. No offense to all you economists reading this, but has grown so big and is growing so fast that it can't be comprehended. The "invisible hand of the market place" is now something monstrous, not to mention it can cause birth defects in the state of California.
bdbrJan 12, 2011
Global economics can be comprehended, but not accurately predicted. There are very different schools of thought in economics (as well as sociological and political factors), so two economists can look at the same data and come to very different conclusions. It's a pretty common question whether economics even should be called a science.
tibugJan 12, 2011
I can't extract anything from all of it, but I guess some people can. You're making the point that I was trying to get at. "two economists can look at the same data and come to very different conclusions." It's absolutely beyond my realm of understanding.
immunofortJan 12, 2011
"two economists can look at the same data and come to very different conclusions."
Thats very true but you're pretty much disregarding all the times where economics can give you a clear answer of what to do. It's just that such that when such scenarios come up there is no debate at all and so nobody gives it a second though.
One such example was with Paul Volcker and inflation during the early 80's. He was able to make inflation fall from 12.5% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1982, though it did come at the cost of many jobs.And in the end even if they do come to different conclusions, those 2 conclusions are still pretty useful for planning as it rules out the completely wrong conclusions.
thecollective00Jan 12, 2011
Should economists reveal who pays them?
Does the pope s**t in the woods?
nodespikeJan 12, 2011
YES!!!!!!!!!
last i heard he s**ts in the street and kicks it into the woods.
SpeakOfTheDevilJan 12, 2011
The pope is the single largest source of purity bricks used to make Bibles.
/Louis CK reference
norman619Jan 12, 2011
Does he? O_o
anomaly100Jan 12, 2011
Yeppers!
bdbrJan 12, 2011
It's a good rule of thumb when reading a study or prediction to find out who's paying them. It will usually affect the outcome. One of the main contributors to the credit crash of 2008 was ratings agencies (e.g. Moody's) rating securities as lower risk than they really were. Guess who pays them - the company selling the security!
Economists and scientists should say who is paying them, and admit they have a slant when they do. Usually you can tell what an economist's slant is when reading them, mostly by what data the leave *out* of their analysis!
ncmusicJan 12, 2011
I disagree with this part: "Economists and scientists should say who is paying them, and admit they have a slant when they do." A paycheck doesn't guarantee a slant, since I assume there aren't any scientist and economists working for free, which implies all economics and science is "slanted."
bdbrJan 12, 2011
I said they should admit they have a slant when they do. That may or may not have anything to do with a paycheck.
ncmusicJan 12, 2011
Misinterpreted "when they do" as applying to being paid not having a slant.
Closed AccountJan 12, 2011
Sorry, is that a question? It should be common sense.
emayors444Jan 12, 2011
Yes. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It will forever change your opinion on this matter. (Okay, well at least read the description and user comments on Amazon.com)
thrashertmJan 12, 2011
Yes. Former Fed Governor Fred Mishkin was essentially bribed to say that Iceland had a robust banking system months before it crumbled - http://www.economicdisasterarea.com/index.php/features/mishkins-iceland-fail-video/
zkatkinJan 12, 2011
Yes
prince76Jan 12, 2011
They must or else!
gkiltzJan 12, 2011
There are two groups of people in North America who flatly refuse to speak a language anyone else in North America understands, In Canada, there are the separatists, and in the US there are the economists.
zephyrprimeJan 12, 2011
Yes. Many economists are just paid for marketing whores. People need to realize that much of what passes for economic discourse is nothing but pure lies paid for by special interests that profit from certain economic agendas.
rattelerJan 12, 2011
Hell yes!
eraptorJan 12, 2011
Without a doubt.
Objectivity is a critical element in determining trustworthiness and credibility. It's well known that financial gain creates "conflict of interest" and bias. Why else would corporations heap billions on Congress and subject matter "experts"?
yannafelix1Jan 13, 2011
I think it really depends
Closed AccountJan 13, 2011
Should reporters and bloggers also?
jimclay75050Jan 16, 2011
No doubt that most economists need a ethical code of conduct, but the ones on TV that are giving their opinions do. If they are giving advise it would be good to know who is paying them. For example, if an economist is getting paid by an automobile association I would not trust him or her if they are promoting automobile growth.
owen8739Jan 20, 2011
I think they should since they are biased by their employer