Absolutely, most journalists do not understand basic quantitative reasoning or economic principles.
For example, I read a BBC article a while back about a sand shortage in India. It turns out the government imposed a price-ceiling, and there was no shortage at all (sand was available in the black market) - there was just a shortage at the government mandated price point.
Any economics 101 student can tell you that if you set a price-ceiling there will be a shortage.
Yes, but I wouldn't say that "almost all" economists don't understand the principle (as in the title). I would be more likely to say that "almost all" reporters don't understand basic economics & statistics.
The main problem is that some journalists have read enough economists to be able to pass themselves off as having done the work. When you scratch, there is no quantifying of anything. This article is shock-value based clickbait.
Reminds me of this blog post by Felix Salmon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/01/economics-w... where he concedes that most economic journalists, himself included, don't really read economic papers because they can't be bothered to follow the math.
That means they can get snowed by unwarranted assertions in the more plainly written introduction and conclusion and cite the paper/study as saying something it doesn't.
Like the article says, sand was actually more widely available when the government had capped the price at $0. The Econ 101 student is blind to the interesting parts of this story.
I'm gonna say that anyone who throws out something like "people who don't understand supply and demand" likely doesn't understand them past the ultra-simplistic view presented in Econ 101.
Some people understand subject matters just enough to make a statement but not well enough to analyze others' statements. Economics in particular seems to be full of these people
Didn't say that. Poor information on the conditions and effects of production is fundamental to unregulated markets. Much like externalities, they are not mere "imperfections" or footnotes which is usually how they are presented in pro-free-market Econ 101 texts. They are fundamental; e.g. much of the environmental threat the planet faces can be contributed to externalities and poor info. Nevermind the poor animal-poop slaves.
Regulations and activism (such as this type of journalism) are some of the non-market forces that can compensate.
For example, I read a BBC article a while back about a sand shortage in India. It turns out the government imposed a price-ceiling, and there was no shortage at all (sand was available in the black market) - there was just a shortage at the government mandated price point.
Any economics 101 student can tell you that if you set a price-ceiling there will be a shortage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50386515
reply