Factcheck.org and subjective economics?
 

Hey all,

Any economists out there that read http://www.factcheck.org ? I've found it a great resource for learning about questionable political tactics on both sides of the American aisle.

It appears to my amatuer eyes that it is written from a "corporate libertarian" perspective. I've discussed general economics with several social scientists, and read a few textbooks, and I've come to the conclusion "right" and "wrong" here highly subjective and are based on a deep seeded moral frame of reference.

For example, they often mention economic development, based on gross product indicators, like the GDP (which many consider primitive since it doesn't subtract disasters, pollution costs, or social capital waste). I'm a New Yorker, so based on this reasoning, 9/11/01 was actually beneficial to our economy, because there is a huge amount of production for recovery. There is no doubt that certain individuals benefited from this and other economic disasters, and the gross economy increased because of it. I feel that individuals must decide where it's "good" when capital flows from the rich to the poor or, as in the above case, vice verse.

Trying really hard to sound neutral here, I know I'm failing, but I'd like to avoid political arguments. I'd like to focus this thread on factcheck.org and whether you believe economics are subjective or not.

I'd love any references to good books that could help me learn more about local and world economics. I know it's geeky, but I'm a small business owner and I'm lately obsessed learning how to run a smart, honest, obscenely profitable company.

Thanks for any input!

i'm not much of an economics person, but i'd say they're definatly subjective. well, economics themselves are objective, it's the interpretation and analysis that are subjective. you can objectively see what's happening, but it takes an individual to decide if they think that it is "good" or "bad". for example, a fattening middle class is good, IMO. but if it comes at a shrinking upper class, they'll feel it's "bad."

Being an economist by training and spending many years using it in my profession(s) I unequivocally state that economics is subjective.

Economics is among the most complicated subjects in the world (at least in my opinion) because there is really no limit to the depth of analysis that you can do. At some point the depth goes too far and you're drilling into almost inconsequential data with very limited impact to the overall research but most don't ever come close to delving too deep.

GDP is absolutely the best measure of the economy right now but it can not be looked at in isolation. It does not include, by definition, the things you cite but true economic analysis uses those external facts to lend perspective to the GDP number. No one is predicting the levels of growth within say NYC to remain the same post 9/11 as it was a onetime (hopefully) event and the federal, state, and international flow of funds being dedicated to the region will go away at some point.

What everyone needs to be aware of is the fact that there is no single economic indicator that you can look to to "understand" the economy. You always need to luck at multiple indicators, the trends occuring in each, their interaction with each other, and the forces (short or long term) shaping the economy.

As far as factcheck. org, while they are a little less biased about the presentation of economic "facts" they are far from masters of economic theory. IMO, they could go much farther in their economic explanations than they do. Far too often they point to only that certain things are inaccurate in ads and do not go on to explain why these partial truths in themselves may be important and/or how they interact with economic health.