Ignoring science

Unfortunately, it's a game everybody can play

For some time, parts of the US (and European) right have been willing to simply steamroller over evidence-based research. Vaccination is the big story here, of course. But economics is another field where the new conservative movement is willing to simply ignore well-founded economic research in favor of eccentric and poorly evidenced alternatives. The US administration’s embrace of tariffs is, of course, a prime example. Brexit (not in the US, I admit), is another example: “alternative” economists in the UK happily provided scenarios of “unleashed growth” if only the UK was set free from EU regulations. In fact, ten years later the evidence is clear: conventional economists knew that Brexit would be a very, very expensive experiment.

Unfortunately, the US left now wishes to adopt the same type of thinking. This isn’t a brand new problem, as Paul Krugman’s takedown of Bernie Sanders 2016 economic plan shows. Krugman, a supposed avatar of the left, had no problem calling out “voodoo economics” (Krugman’s term) on the left. (Let me add that there are right wing economists who are willing to take on their own party, like Doug Holz-Eakin. Unfortunately, nobody in their own party listens any more.)

Could the Democratic party reach the stage where policy simply ignores facts? The party’s not there yet, but the fascination with rent control is not a good sign.

There is considerable evidence that rent control is a bad policy. See here, here, here, and here. Summary: the historical experience with rent control is that it reduces housing investment, causes faster depreciation of the existing housing stock, makes housing shortages worse, and is difficult to reverse once tenant-voters have a strong vested interest in under-market rents.

Are there other ways to alleviate housing costs in New York City? Yes. Do they take time to work? Yes, they do. Are they politically difficult? Yes. But does rent control provide a possible solution to this otherwise difficult to solve problem? No, it doesn’t. It will simply make the problem worse.

That’s not a polemical statement. That’s what the research shows—just like vaccination research shows that vaccinations save lives. And that’s why it’s disappointing to see so many people who argued for “following the science” on vaccinations ignoring science that they don’t like. Maybe it’s becoming a forlorn hope that at some point policy—economic policy, health policy, foreign policy—is made based on facts, and the best research available. Rather than what makes people—right or left—feel good, and feel like they’ve “owned” somebody, whether it’s libs or landlords.