Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs has sparked a lively debate among economists and others. Is customs duties okay? Maybe those subs? Should the government impose those rights? These arguments are interesting in their own right, but also raise general questions about mares. What should an economist do?
The title of this post is Buchanan’s original paper echo blog. But, as suggested by Buchanan, it’s not his paper that I would like to introduce. Rather, I would like to point out another insight from Buchanan. Let’s start by quoting the obvious (and fascinating) stories handed over by Buchanan student Richard E. Wagner.
While sitting excitedly for class on the first day, I saw Buchanan look at his roll sheet. He looked at the room, especially as if looking for Sumone, and felt an adrenaline rush, “Mr. Wagner, what’s wrong with the US tax system?”
After my summer reading, that question was written for me, or I thought so… I immediately began to recite reading that summer about simplifying tax systems by reducing exemptions and deductions etc. Buchanan seemed to be paying close attention to me, which made me hungry. But when I was finished, I answered: “Mr. Wagner, you have no business answering such questions. We are Democrats here, not self-attack.”
The key point of Buchanan’s reaction (also through his work that starts with Knu Wicksel, which Buchanan praises greatly) is that economists are not in a position to judge what people should want or what is good for them. There is no “truth” in politics, Buchanan tells us at the limits of his freedom. And if he consolidates with Buchanan and therefore rejects “the true jealous approach to politics,” he writes in the first chapter: “We cannot claim to play God.
Rather, it depends on each and every person – it is the todded who becomes what they want and their life evaluation. “The situation is judged ‘good’ as long as it allows them to get what they want to get. Deciding what is good for others is not the job of an economist-political philosopher or others.
Where does that leave the economist? They play an invaluable role. They recommend examining the outcomes of different courses of action and moving forward with different methods given what people want. Therefore, economists are cautiously interested. They should give people a Prudential warning about the economist’s aspirations for valuable science and the best way to pursue so many boundaries.
However, it must be added that this does not mean that economists should not drive away governments for certain actions. But in doing so, they must make it clear that they are taking only the perspective of the citizens and not judge the government’s actions for themselves. What I mean is that whenever an economist exceeds the unanimous consent of a citizen, he can criticize the actions of a government (again, this is always a measure of “good”). But economists don’t suggest their preferences — or “the truth” — insists that the government accepts individual savings. Economists must be Democrats, not dictators.
Max Malden is a doctoral student at the University of Hamburg. He has worked for European students and for Liberty and Prometheus – Das Freiheitsinstitut. It is published regularly on Der Freydenker.
