Why do so many academics dislike the market?

It seems Nozick was right after all, here is Raul Magni-Berton and Diego Rios:

In this article, the authors explore why academics tend to oppose the market. To this intent the article uses normative political theory as an explanatory mechanism, starting with a conjecture originally suggested by Robert Nozick. Academics are over-represented amongst the best students of their cohort. School achievement engenders high expectations about future economic prospects. Yet markets are only contingently sensitive to school achievement. This misalignment between schools and markets is perceived by academics – and arguably by intellectuals in general – as morally unacceptable. To test this explanation, the article uses an online questionnaire with close to 1500 French academic respondents. The data resulting from this investigation lend support to Nozick’s hypothesis.

Via Rolf Degen.


I've always suspected it's because academics are experts in their fields. And the use of markets does not rely on experts to make decisions for the rest of us, thereby lowering the status of experts like themselves compared to central planning. Hence, academics dislike markets. I have zero data to back this up, but will stridently insist it is true, like any good internet commenter.

And the use of markets does not rely on experts to make decisions for the rest of us,

Look around you, at your phone, computer, TV, the natural gas keeping you warm, your sofa, clothes, they were all brought into by experts. You only get to choose among what the experts choose to give you. You aren’t creating anything.

But experts weren't making policies to decide which phones, computers, TVs, etc would be best for society. They were experts employed by firms, (mostly) not universities. No one allocated to me the "right" TV. Firms produced their TVs with varying feature and price trade-offs, and I made the best decision I could within my budget to satisfy my preferences with the information I had. That's a much different model than having experts dictate actions through policy.

But experts weren't making policies to decide which phones, computers, TVs, etc would be best for society.

That’s exactly what the executives at Sony, Apple, LG are doing. The phrase “best for society” is doing a lot of work in your argument. Best for society is determined by society’s response is it not?

I think your argument would make more sense if you said academic are primarily judged by peers while executives are judged by both peers and customers/consumers.

There were also experts at Sears, Kodak, McClatchy, Lucent, Nortel and there are plenty of experts at GE, Yahoo, JC Penny Dell and plenty of other struggling companies. CLEARLY technical expertise isnt the primary factor in commercial success.

CLEARLY technical expertise isnt the primary factor in commercial success.

Isn't technical expertise* what separates Google and Yahoo and Apple and Blackberry?

* engineering, supply chain, software development, marketing, etc?

Uh, nooooo. You're kidding, right? ALL companies have technical expertise. SUCCESFULL companies have popular, profitable products. Tech expertise is about as good as opposable thumbs

This article is really a pleasant one it helps new net users, who are wishing for blogging.

A friend who teaches in a business school once told me that the most extremely successful of his graduates had been straight C students.

My Marketing professor in under grad school told me he never hired straight-A students. He thought they would not have good real world understanding.

Old, old saying: A students work for B students at companies run by C students which were founded by D students.

Nozick was right.

High IQ is associated with envy, jealousy, competitiveness. So these high IQ people work hard, do well and find themselves at the bottom of the social hierarchy. That makes professors very, very, very angry. So they support a central command system...when them in command.

If you want to see how irrelevant academics are, look at Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, which 1,500 eminent law professors opposed. Who listened to those 1,500 law profs? No one.

You can't be him, hun. You're making too much sense.

Kavanaugh has the lowest approval ratings of any sitting justice in the last few decades. Apparently more than a few are listening.

Approval rating of a sitting justice? It would be difficult to come up with a more meaningless metric.

CL is a left-wing anti-market professor. Like a typical useless academic, he uses useless, meaningless stats to support his useless, meaningless argument which, inevitably, supports the (delusional) view that academics are superior and have influence. ("approval ratings" for judges?? Lol what on earth is that.)

No, he had the ABA's highest rating.

Now that we’ve banned p-values, can we ban studies based on surveys and self-reports?


"Gadflies are useful; we do need some intellectuals. But, eventually, many of this class would look up from their scribblings, note the growing wealth of their entrepreneurial counterparts and ask: If we’re so smart and moral, why are they so rich?"

Intellectuals tend to be very risk adverse, which is not conducive to wealth building in a capitalist society that rewards risk taking.

Markets in everything. How about markets in ideology. Did the Nazis come to power in Germany because of a military coup or markets in ideology? Was that a market success or a market failure? How about markets in social media? Is that a market success or a market failure? Markets in the long run work (Hitler is dead), but not necessarily in the short run. Of course, we are all dead in the long run. That's a market failure.

From Nozick to Hitler and Zuckerberg in 2 steps.

Southern elderly lawyer, or 4chan genius troll?

The world may never know.

Academia is a medieval guild. Heidegger and the French postmodern Nazi bootlickers maintained respectability in the guild even after the death of the Nazi regime. Yet another academic failure.

Two comments. They weren’t Nazis. They were something similar, though left wing: they were Leninists, Trots, and Stalinists. (Though some turned to far left anarchism because after ‘56 and ‘68 even the most obtuse could see that Communism was a busted flush. Now their match thru the institutions is centred on and in the academy. And identity politics is their banner.)

Yes, Heidegger and Paul de Man were Nazi-ish. The revelation that de Man wrote pro Nazi stuff was a massive nail in the coffin of French post modernism. Overnight, his name rightly became dirt. I know no one over in our Lit depts who even mentions his name. Heidegger represents a much different, even fascinating, problem, because he is a profound thinker, whose thoughts can be disentangled from his personal life, much as there are great insights in the existential thought of the odious left wing toad Sartre that have nothing to do with Marx or Marxism.

Nazi-ish? Are you Hannah Arendt apologizing for her lover's personal "error"?

More to the point. You cannot separate Heidegger's philosophy, however profound, from his support of the Nazis: ''Strauss's question always was, What was it about modern thought that could have led Heidegger to make these disastrous practical misjudgments?''

The Vichy French poodles have simply extended the basic insights of their German masters and adapted them to fashionable leftist causes.

Heidegger's philosophy was not profound.

Not saying he was a low-IQ guy, but his philosophy was basically to real philosophy (which you rarely encounter, sometimes you see it when a few philosophers of the past are at their best, and no, Kant and Descartes and poor little Nietzsche are not included in any list of philosophers of the past who were ever at their best - they forgot to understand friendship before beginning to philosophize, that was the deal breaker, trust me) --- his (poor little Professor Heidegger's) philosophy basically was to real philosophy what sophisticated and germ-free Ramen Noodle plastic Cups are to that meal you had that night at that restaurant, that night when the woman you loved so much (if only she were still as beautiful as she was that night ---- well, maybe she is) was there, the regular chef was in the kitchen, the tables were lit by candles, was candles, not that cheap paraffin nonsense you remembered from the old days when you bravely fought a war, over the hills and far away, and outside, (outside, in the lawn of emerald grass outside the front windows of the beloved restaurant - I remember) the stars up above silently spoke to each other.

Like I said, Heidegger, when you think of what life was like at such a meal, was just that ultra=modern shrink-wrapped little package of dried Ramen Noodles.

Trust me, or not.

If you don't, read a few of the millions of words I have written, and remember this, instead:

Bertrand Russell, of all people, was not sure if mathematics - understood perfectly ---- was trivial or not.

I know the answer to that, and probably so do you .....

and to end this comment with a note of kindness ...

poor Heidegger, and poor Russell, knew the answer, just as much as you and I know the answer

wax candles on that table, that night, when everything was as beautiful as on any night you had ever remembered

Not bad. Punctuation in the first stream was a little rough.

r u in 212? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3Jv9fNPjgk&list=RDi3Jv9fNPjgk&start_radio=1&t=0 paul kantar is a wise man who knows that Descartes was wise man and could bat with sewn mint.

"Trust me, or not." - Okay, "not" it is.

"If you don't, read a few of the millions of words I have written..." - I'll cut you a deal. You trust me or not, and if you don't, send me money - that'll really teach me.

"...the stars up above silently spoke to each other." - Much poet, so nonsense, very baloney, wow. Seriously, what is the thought process that generates such garbage? Do you actually look at the sky, see Orion, and think "Rigel and Betelgeuse (which are hundreds of light years apart) are speaking to each other... but not just speaking... *silently* speaking?" Better yet, do you come to a comment thread like this, and think to yourself "They are talking about Heidegger, but I want to talk about telepathic stars and wax (definite not paraffin) candles, which is more important, so I'll just go full logorrheic on them"?

That was a quote from Lermontov

Zvyezda s zvyesdoyoo govorit .....

from a poem in which, believe it or not, the "star speaks with star" line is not better than the other lines!

and, to tell the truth, sometimes I come to a comment thread like this, I think to myself - I will talk to people as I talk to my friends, I will discuss the love God has for us, and why I --- who, if you could see me, looks like an uglier version of Andrew Cuomo --- why I know so much about true love, true compassion, honesty, and hatred of that which is unkind, unfair, and selfish.

what is the thought process that generates such garbage?

sorry, try and read the poem Lermontov wrote in the original Russian, you will see what I was trying to do (communicate in a way people understand, in your case I failed, oh well) ....

if you like, I will explain the parrafin reference. Your money and trust quote was just rude, you can do better than that: show some respect to others.

I happen to have read Lermontov in the original Russian. I know people like like you who can go on for hours about how magical the Russian language is because, for example, it has words like "leleyat'", and how transcendental Lermontov is. Even granting that - I'd probably rank him #2 for my favorite Russian poet, after Vysotsky - there is a place and a time for this. Was I rude to you? Absolutely. And I would do it again. Because your thread-jacking was much ruder. To butt into a conversation saying, basically, "What you are talking is not profound, let's talk about what I like, which is" is immature, disrespectful, attention-seeking behavior, especially when your favorite topics seem to be heavily loaded with art, which is famously subjective.

And no, thanks, I do not care about the paraffin reference.

you say what you mean.

And you are intelligent.

And you got all worked up arguing about what is rude!

But no, you do not know people like me.

Thanks for reading.

Heidegger, for the record, was never profound.

Feel free to have the last word, but leave out the insults.

Both you and me are likely more profound thinkers than Heidegger, and what we say matters.

A day or two later, I guess it is fair to say you did not want the last word.

The scholars of the future will not be happy with you for not caring about the paraffin reference.

Sometimes i write badly, sometimes I write well, sometimes I write like an angel ---- and, to get you off the blame for your rudeness to someone who actually knows how to write like a human ----- the paraffin reference was from the "write like an angel" category.

--- remembering our simple berks on the ship, that night, in Rivendell or the palaces of Zimiamvia --

or better yet I was the only guy in that war (a couple decades ago) who had a pal who had volunteered for that other war (in 1898), he was not a good pal, but he was still a pal ---- cor ad cor loquitur, the parties were the same, the bourbon tasted the same, the laughter was not all that different between that party where the poet felt happy and that other party where there were no poets, just kind and lovely people who could never

never ever

write a line of poetry anyone would pay to hear ... but that is trivial (the lack of poetry)


I will show you in any old hotel, any old beach, any old town that is now run down with collapsed real estate prices

I will show you that, in each of those places, somebody loved somebody

there has been so much happiness in this world

that is why it is good to be a poet who remembers

despite the sadness we also know so much about

but God loves us all

tomorrow the sun will rise

tomorrow everyone I pray for will be a little or a lot happier
I pray for you, too

cheer up
cheer up

God loves you

and so do I
I whom God felt close enough to

to allow him to be

so so far from God for so long

all because
all because

all because

God wanted me to be a poet

someone who understands

and cares

remember how much I have prayed for you
year in year out

Joy in the Morning

My Name is Life

God Loves Us All

It is no Small Thing to be a Friend to a Creature who never had a friend in this world

God loves you more than God loves me
That is ok
God needs friends, too, and needs to be allowed his own emotions

Friends understand

God is my friend

and I will pray for you

you won the lottery

if you think that was too many words

I just don't know what to say

it wasn't too many words

I say less than I could

imagine that as if

as if you knew

what I know

you can

you can


John 1

Proverbs 8

there you go, don't trust me, trust the writers of

John 1

Proverbs 8

Wisdom is more important than argument

Wisdom is something I saw once, face to face

and so I want every one else to see

Wisdom, cor ad cor loquitur

that night, the way we laughed because the paraffin candles were not good enough

but the starlight was

good enough

I remember

try and remember, I really think

that your guardian angel, and my guardian angel, and , maybe, even me,

talked about this in the garden of Eden

try and remember if such things occurred

try and remember

God loves you

cor ad cor loquitur

(I am not used to being insulted by anybody, particularly not by honest people, so I apologize for what might seem an over-reaction, if you do not know that

(a) our guardian angels were pals in the Garden of Eden

(b) I remember more than I admit

(c) God loves you, and not that long ago, in prayer, I understood that in a way that I wish you could also understand.

Again, sorry for over-reacting, if you think that is what this is.

I am always amazed that anyone could add to the words of hatred that have been sent my way

can't you see

that everyone who crosses paths with me

is someone I pray for?


I am much much older than you think, and I have prayed for people in my life who you would imagine were too old to live in the same world as I do - people whose parents were young in the early 1800s.

And in this weird internet world I meet someone like you

who thinks I am rude and talk too much

of course I am rude and talk too much

but that is ok

because God hears my prayers

and God loves you.

It wasn't too many words.

It never was.

Kind words, kind thoughts, kind prayers, kind remembrance

I will pray for you

You won the lottery

You and those you love.

When someone says they will pray for you

they did not say too much.

I have seen miracles

and I am praying for you.

that being said

your life is far from my life

you will never have anything to do with anybody I have truly cared about in this world

you will probably not even read these words

thousands of years from now, maybe, you will read these words

thousands and thousands of years.

You are welcome, you are welcome that I prayed for you.

Time is fast, and time is slow, try, my young friend,

try to be better than time.

Don't be fast or slow,

be charitable.

Why do I bother?

I would rather be doing many other things (musical, culinary, FRIENDSHIP, paying attention to animals)

I bother because I care

don't be fooled by the fact that I am writing "in a comments section", which seems like the sort of thing that is not all that important, the sort of thing that people who have nothing better to do spend their time doing

don't be fooled

I care

and when I pray for you

you have won the lottery

God hears my prayers

Yours, too, I hope

there is faith hope and charity and the best of them all is charity

thanks for reading

maybe most people think that you wrote my comments and I wrote yours

it does not matter

God loves us all

We can, with prayer, heal the sickness of others, alleviate their suffering,

life is short and the story of our relationship with God is long

May I note that even Lermontov did not have stars speaking to each other *silently*?

"why is that I cannot say"

Russian Review, Volume 1, March 1916, from a translation of a poem by "M.J. Lermontov", about, believe it or not, stars.

There is more than one poem about stars by Lermontov. The first volume of the Russian Review had a translation of the one that supports the idea of Lermontov, silence, and stars which I tried to express. The other, more famous poem, has the Russian words for stars, among themselves, and speak. They are both very very good poems, it is better, I guess, to know them both than to only know one.

Thanks, though, for the clarification, that was impressive.

So, who are the philosophers we should read?

All the famous philosophers are better at writing philosophy than I am, but, since it is easier to describe philosophy than practice it, there is a chance that my opinion is valuable, and if you accept that premise, and if you want to read the philosophers who I think got the least amount wrong ---

in North America - try reading about Solanus Casey (like Socrates, he wrote no books)
in England - Christina Rossetti, or, if you want a more modern aphorist, William Arkle
in Germany - Novalis, I think (I could be wrong, I am going on vague memories) (Kant was supremely talented but he lacked the divine intuition a real philosopher should have )
in France - Peguy (if you go to google books - and do a search for Balthasar on Peguy - available without being gated, last time I looked - almost all the relevant reasons that Balthasar had for considering Peguy a great philosopher will be available, and I agree with Balthasar); also, some of Pascal's writings
Scotland - George MacDonald
Ireland - James Joyce philosophized in the last year or two of his life at a very high level, you can find the results in the part of Finnegans Wake that follows Sandyhas, Sandyhas
the ancient world - they were all discombobulated by the cruelty of the societies they lived in, but at their best most of the classical philosophers had something to say
Israel - this is tricky, there is philosophy in lots of books of the Bible, but it is something that, unless you are a supremely gifted soul (I am not, maybe you are, there are a lot more supremely gifted souls in this world than most people think, which is why, although I sometimes come across on the internet as arrogant, I am actually very humble), you almost always need a good commentator - the best way to really understand the philosophy of the ancient Hebrews is, I think, to read with a desire to understand God, who is after all our friend, and reread selections - you do not need an encyclopedic knowledge.
I am one of the happiest people I know and one reason is that I have, year after year, tried to understand the philosophical concepts in the readings from the Book of Wisdom and similar books from the Bible that my church's liturgical calendar, year in and year out, assigns to the various feast days and other days of the liturgical year.

Technically, I think the most impressive of the philosophers who are wrong about many many things are Plato, Aquinas, and Spinoza. And of course Aristotle, and also Spenser and Shakespeare (the poets). But I am not all that technically gifted ....

Related, but less blatantly self-interested:

I've noticed anecdotally engineers tend to believe in big, top-down policy solutions. I think it's because they see policy problems like engineering problems: puzzles to be solved by smart guys. The same thing would apply to academic experts in other fields.

"Academics are over-represented amongst the best students of their cohort. " Is this even true?

If you define best students as those with the highest GPA, then yes it's probably true.

While there are likely to be multiple factors, academia is heavily Democrat, and we know how they feel about markets.

A cynic right observe that people on the left and the right each have groups to blame for lost advantage.

And it splits in a rather ragged edge doesn't it?

On the right Mr. Market is to be trusted, but he is not allowed to hire Mexicans.

This is one of the more autistic/retarded statements you’ve made.

Academics are resentful and envious that they will never make real money. Most workers would be resentful that academics cannot be fired and have guaranteed 6 figure income for life. And that every minimum wage earner pays thousands in taxes for their life tenure, salary, and 90% pension.

In the real world, one can advocate for unlimited immigration, a dissolution of public tertiary education funding outside the GI Bill, and a wage subsidy for apprentices in the trades.

And yet you reflexively side with the ones who won the public choice game and milk the system.

Bring a better game.

If you read carefully, I didn't side with anyone.

Non-partisan stupidity is still stupidity.

What was stupid Jeff? Bring it.

Do youu ddeny that people who call themselves free-market actually have a framework of implicit regulation they require?

Would you deny that this contradiction is especially prevalent in the populist uprising?

Would you like to do 5 minutes on Trump's relationship with General Motors?

Go away.

What, you want Marginal Revolution to be that special place where you can talk about leftists their fear of the free market while the Trump and GM circus plays out?

How special.

TDS as usual. Trump has never been a free marketeer (just like you).

Weird that you guys keep assuming positions for me .. and what was that thing about Trump?

Are you saying that free marketers all abandoned him in the last presidential election?

Talk about wanting it both ways. It is still TDS to see Trump for what he is, and you still demand a free pass for supporting it.

No one supports it dipshit

Basically, there is "painting yourself into a corner," and then there is "how can you stand in a corner that small?'

You're just engaged in concerning trolling and whataboutery for your tedious daily 2 minutes of hate directed at Trump, which I suppose is tangentially related to the topic at hand inasmuch as many academics are like you in having an psychotic need to waste time doing the same in their classes.

To rephrase it though, for people who missed it the first time:

Bitter people blame someone else, film at eleven.

I’ll take the challenge and fisk your comment, by paragraph-
1. & 2., cryptic but effectively “ they all do it”
3. Criticize “the right”
The end.

The criticism of the left was already in place, so that was providing symmetry.

I don't know why something so simple is so controversial though.

There are fringe believers in completely free market and completely free borders, but they are certainly not represented in any major political movement.

And so if you're looking at the American mainstream left and mainstream right you are looking at people choosing a shaped market of one sort or another.

And it certainly fair at this point, especially because no one on the right is up in arms to stop it, to treat Trump's GM relationship as current right-wing "free market" thinking.

So too trade wars.

"it certainly fair at this point, especially because no one on the right is up in arms to stop it, to treat Trump's GM relationship as current right-wing "free market" thinking.

So too trade wars."

This is complete idiocy. Please stop it. No one. NO ONE. Thinks trade wars and tweets are free market ideology.

"No one. NO ONE. Thinks trade wars and tweets are free market ideology."

Is that true? With Krugman's article "Is free trade passé?" in mind, isn't the mainstream consensus that trade wars are good for a country if its opponents have a limited ability to retaliate? Isn't that precisely the calculation of Wilbur Ross/Peter Navarro, etc.?

It's not as if Trump is acting alone.

"that trade wars are good for a country if its opponents have a limited ability to retaliate"

That maybe true, but it doesn't make them free market ideology. Indeed any negotiated trade agreements are not actually free market concepts.

NAFTA didn't create a "free market trade zone" it was just freer than what came before. A criminal wearing an ankle monitor under house arrest has substantially more freedom than another criminal in prison, but that doesn't make her free.

How certain are you on the direction of that causation?

"In this article, the authors explore why academics tend to oppose the market. To this intent the article uses normative political theory as an explanatory mechanism, starting with a conjecture originally suggested by Robert Nozick."

Didn't Mises say it first? IActually, it seems to be the fourth interaction of that line of reasoning.

devalue and dismiss for harvard
but not for me?


our new emotional support yoga goat says if harvard flips everbody the bird it is called signaling but if your median straussian yoga goat rustler flips harvard the bird it is called devaluation and dismissal
tes por eso que nos comimos la nueva cabra de apoyo emocional en una tortilla tibia y fresca con guacamole y Lima
mientras leía NPRS fraughtfully insípida narrativa sobre la mortalidad perinatal.
es una sociologist toxica narrativa sándwich sucio

Don't most people dislike free markets? Witness the popular banning of pay toilets.

I think most people in the US take the fruits of the free market for granted but don’t understand how markets work.

The banning of pay toilets seems to have been the work of pressure groups, not the will of “the people”.

Why would academics understand markets? They’ve (mostly) only ever gone to school, and at most the only thing they’ve marketed is themselves at conferences or job talks.

Academia is as much a meritocracy as markets, that is to say, less than popularly believed, but it would be wrong to say it doesn't exist.

"I think most people in the US take the fruits of the free market for granted but don’t understand how markets work."

The free market isn't always the most efficient system. If individual fee collection is very expensive compared to the value of the service offered, then a centralized tax and spend approach is superior.

Reference, pay toilets, most roads (before automated toll collection), etc.

Academics (especially Deans and higher) are among the most poisonous little toads I've ever come across. Not sure why. Self selection?

As Sayre's Law puts it: "The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low"

It seems to me that the academic dislike of markets has much older roots -- it's an extension of the hostility and disdain by aristocrats and the clerisy for those 'in trade'. Here, Deirdre McCloskey discusses that hostility going back the Elizabethan era:


The mechanism that Nozick describes may reinforce the anti-market prejudice, but it does not appear to be the source of it.

It's projection. Work life in academia is unusually un-regulated, sometimes tyrannically exploitative, and often poorly paid. Academics extrapolate from their own experience to assume that these outcomes are inherent in the market economy writ large.

No one "likes markets".
What people like is something which they believe delivers something of value.
Two people look at a store filled with consumer items. One sees markets, the other sees a highly regulated and coordinated society.

They both are describing the same thing, just different aspects of it.

Wait, what's the evidence that academics 'oppose the market'? All markets? Stock markets? Farmer's markets? Betting markets?

This doesn't reflect my own experiences with academics. Most of my coursework was in Social Sciences and Humanities (mostly History, Political Science, Anthropology). Most of my instructors seemed to place a high value on markets (as drivers of historical development and in theory to solve problems, distribute information, allocate resources effectively, etc.). I did not go to a school known to be particularly right-wing in nature.

It seemed like most professors either 1)had a strong familiarity with the generally low quality of life and unfairness in non-market driven societies 2) had a strong understanding of how markets worked and their benefits over central planning or both.

Pipe down, you. Can't you see these people need to do their mood affiliating? Profs are commies and whatnot, it's just a big ol' Marxist playpen in every department everywhere.

End sarcasm: nice post

Isn't this a core idea of Schumpeter's "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy"? This doesn't seem like a very original claim.

Well this is interesting. I think there are two different issues. First some people choose to go into academia even though anyone with the chops to be a successful academic could have made good money in a more profitable field. I don’t have much sympathy for those people since they are choosing to forgo monetary rewards in favor of non-monetary ones. On the other hand, I and many people I know who did go into the private sector found that often things like preexisting connections mattered more than ability, especially in fields where results are subjective and not easily measured, and that parental wealth for one’s own wealth matters more than career success. These realizations didn’t make me hate markets though, actually they made me feel that more things should be marketized so that firms that hire and promote based on affiliation and connections will be outcompeted by ones that go for merit.

This seems to be the caricature of business that academics often believe.

They are angry because they took all that college too seriously, it didn't pay off like they expected. 'Hating the market' really means hating corporations.

I always thought it would be interesting to look at the political views of

A. People who make more money than their educational level predicts.

B. People who make less money than their educational level predicts.

Academic Fragility

I'm a bit suspect. Academics seem to like markets when they can be leveraged to more power and influence - they are not silent on using "Oh Populist national things can't happen because international markets need to operate". They never met a grant or expanding state program run by university trained experts they didn't like (even the economists) but that's different from really opposing market society, as such.

"School achievement engenders high expectations about future economic prospects. Yet markets are only contingently sensitive to school achievement. This misalignment between schools and markets is perceived by academics – and arguably by intellectuals in general – as morally unacceptable. "

A simply reflection of the old saying about those who can and those who cannot?

One might think that academics who see high performance in educational settings but lesser performance in a market setting might consider reviewing their view of what and how with education rather than suggesting a market problem.

Based on my years in the universities I'd guess that academics with anti-left views would tend to be concentrated among engineers, vets, and medics. Practical souls all, who knew bloody well they could have earned more elsewhere but chose not to.

I'll take hoary stereotypes for $1000, Alex(/Tyler).

Markets can produce positive and negative outcomes. Most academics recognize this. Do they "dislike" markets because they do not think markets always produce the best outcomes? I'm not really an academic, but I'll freely admit that state action does not always produce the best outcomes. How many of the market fundamentalists who frequent this space would admit the same about their deity?

Members of an economics department at a state-funded institution in Fairfax, Va., spend their days churning out prodigious verbiage about the superiority of market mechanisms over government action. Is that a failure of the state, or the market? Or is it a success? We report, you decide...

Does anybody know if the study focuses on social sciences or across all fields?

This is just true. Bitter useless eggheads ruining the earth with lies, because the market correctly says they ain’t so great. Deconstructing the racism in Gulliver’s travels turns out to be undervalued. Go figure. Broken losers ruining our children. Confused losers whose mommies said they were special ruining the world out of spite at their own failure. Aside from that good people.

Things it seems the study doesn't adequately test:
1. Are academics against markets per se or against the idea that "markets" as they currently exist are really meritocratic?
2. Are there other differences in academics that might account for differences in attitudes towards "markets"? For example, more knowledge about how economies and societies work?
3. How do academics compare to other groups whose members have reason to believe that society is not as meritocratic as they may have been led to believe? Here it would be important to ask whether such people think that the economy is meritocratic and not just their general attitudes to the "market". Simply "opposing markets" is far too crude an attitude to charitably or realistically attribute to people

This post by Tobi Lawson does a good job explaining why we had markets. Market is a bottom up process, we like top down processes because, Homo sapien.

Wait, I'm confused about what 'dark right-wing truth that the PC left don't want you to hear!' is. Last week, it was the 'actually, IQ is a super useful and meaningful predictor of job performance'. But if that's true, it seems unlikely that academics, who have high IQs, are just bitter because they couldn't have made it in the private sector. Given the correlation between IQ and job performance, they probably could have. (Conscientiousness matters a lot as well, but anyone who has ever done a doctorate outside of maybe pure maths, will tell you that academia filters for this very effectively, since a PhD in the humanities often requires months of largely self-directed work that no one else is interested in, with no deadlines, and the sciences require a crazy amount of hours worked each week.) Unless performance is very poorly correlated with career success, but that's quite hard to believe, since any company that solved the problem would outcompete others. (And it's also inconsistent with the view that 'those who make big money in the private sector are the people who are really the best at doing important things.)

(Note accusing the study of making the bitterness claim, just some of the commentators.)

If anything, the reasonable right-of-centre criticism of academia is that it's a place where super smart people can go to waste their skills that otherwise could be productively deployed in the private sector, since without market mechanisms there's nothing to guarantee that what they use their high intelligence and conscientiousness to produce will be of value to anyone else.

You could argue that... but it's not like anyone's put a gun to their heads and stopped them leaving to go found google or something. People who want to opt out into the private economy are free to do so - those that don't probably do not value wealth quite as much.

One thing that Communism never really learned is that human nature could not be manipulated to meet its ends. I'd argue that we make the same mistake if we suggest that markets can turn intelligent, but not very entrepreneurial people into enthusiastic market participants, particularly in today's markets which are driven by wants, much less than needs.

If we tried really hard to put every smart person in the most exposed position to the market, I suspect that one thing we'd get is more people opting out, and possibly some deadweight loss of intelligent folk who just don't produce anything at all. Even if they would though, there must be a psychological cost of forcing them to opt in to institutions that they do not willingly opt into.

Comments for this post are closed