ADVOCACY DISGUISED AS PRESTIGE.

Robert "Bastiat's Window" Graboyes observes, "The Economics Nobel Is a Gold Disk, Not a Crystal Ball."  His essay elaborates on a point we've made with respect to other disciplines where the temptation to go from Wise Expert to Bossy Annoyance is strong.  "[M]ore than a few climate scientists have used their status in that field to make non-scientific, populist appeals to change public policy."  In Professor Graboyes's essay, it's economists using the status they have earned qua economists to make in-kind campaign contributions to the Jarrett regency.

[T]he most unhelpful piece of campaign literature this year is from the Biden side, not so much for its content, but rather because it undermines the scientific reputation of economics and the integrity of its highest honor—the Economics Nobel. It’s a letter from sixteen Nobelists arguing that, “Joe Biden’s economic agenda is vastly superior to Donald Trump’s.” The letter offers ideologically skewed ad hockery as economics and commandeers the Nobel’s prestige. (The letter is here.)

They did give Old Joe something to brag on, and presumably his party's nominee, whoever that might be, will have the same Argument from Authority to appeal to.

Biden repeatedly whispers of his endorsement by “Sixteen NOBEL prizewinning economists … … SIXXTEEEN.” His reverential tone recalls some clergyman proclaiming, “The Bible refers to God by SIXXTEEEN different names,” and the press plays the role of enraptured congregants.

Never mind that fifteen of the signatories also offered a letter to the effect that the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce inflation.  The doctoral dissertations and Minimal Publishable Units are yet to be written.  "Got that? Donald Trump’s potential deficits: bad, unproductive, inflationary. Biden’s actual deficits: good, productive, disinflationary."  James Piereson is having none of it.

In sum, the Nobel laureates praising Biden’s policies today (and criticizing Trump) are the same ones who recommended policies that ignited inflation, drove up interest rates, wrecked the housing market, ballooned the deficit and expenditures on interest, stifled economic growth, and underestimated the true costs of these policies.

Judging by their track record, when it comes to economic policymaking, these prize-winning economists have no idea what they are talking about.

And yet you can count on debate moderators and Sunday show interviewers treating those assertions as Holy Writ, with candidates who demur being hit with variations on the same gotcha question for the duration of the interview.