Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The economic cost of populism

aeaweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: The economic cost of populism

#21

Post by LAC-Tech »

hkpack wrote: post #17
LAC-Tech wrote: post #12

The resurgence of the term "populism" has always been curious to me. As far as I can tell it means "people not voting how they are supposed to". Much like how we have ousting/coup, freedom-fighter/terrorist, government/regime, we have democracy/populism.

For the majority of cases, it just means "ignore the complexity of reality and go with the simple solution". Sometimes, populists do really believe in what they are saying and doing. And the simplicity is what makes them popular - hence populism. The problem is that reality doesn't care. I have yet to see the case when following a populist leader doesn't end up in a disaster.

Essentially a meaningless term then. Everyone in mainstream politics has to present some kind of simple solution that ignores the complexities of the problem, because you can't pass a complex solution through a media filter and get voters out the other side.

So everything is populist. Again which makes the term meaningless.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#22

Post by LAC-Tech »

febra_ wrote: post #16
LAC-Tech wrote: post #12

The resurgence of the term "populism" has always been curious to me. As far as I can tell it means "people not voting how they are supposed to". Much like how we have ousting/coup, freedom-fighter/terrorist, government/regime, we have democracy/populism.

What about the alt/far-right? They fall under the umbrella of populism and seem quite dangerous, especially towards minorities.

Sorry I don't quite understand what you're asking.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#23

Post by mberning »

40+ years of hollowing out the middle working class has clearly not been good. Unless you are in the billionaire class. Revolutions happen when a certain proportion of people cannot attain the necessities of life. Food, shelter, work, family. It can and will be branded many ways, populism, nationalism, protectionism, whatever, but the root cause is a real problem and the billionaire masters of the universe do not want to see it solved.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#24

Post by nonrandomstring »

toss1 wrote: post #15
nonrandomstring wrote: post #2

> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…

>>Are we missing something? Yes H.L.Menken: For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. Populism is about revenge of the narcissistic dullards who are sick of the experts getting to say how things run and what to do. Just because experts also get it wrong sometimes doesn't mean that they should be thrown out, yet the populists are happy to do it (usually backed by behind-the-scenes…

> narcissistic dullards who are sick of the experts getting to say how things run and what to do.

I'm not picking on a easy whipping boy, but isn't that a rather good description of Mark Zuckerberg, his well documented disdain for the establishment, authority and traditional structure?

Might it also encompass more of us "entrepreneurs" and hackers than we care to admit? All of us who regularly feel "all these so-called experts...they're doing it wrong! Let me show you"

Challengers to the incumbents aren't necessarily always destructive, simply iconoclastic. They're part of a dynamic [0].

Perhaps "populism" is a more complex concept than we, and the linked paper, are giving credit for (in a narrow political frame of "economics". Whose economics?

[0] A complex dynamic between "elites" and "masses" that is well analysed by Adam Curtis in many documetray projects.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#27

Post by willis936 »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #14
LaundroMat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have access to the article, but do they define "populism" in it? The same Wikipedia article you linked to also says > In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politician…

Yeah someone else linked it. It was fairly meaningless: According to today’s workhorse definition, populism is defined as a political style centered on the supposed struggle of “people vs. the establishment” (Mudde 2004). Populists place the narrative of “people vs. elites” at the center of their political agenda and then claim to be the sole representative of “the people.” This definition has become increasingly dom…

That seems to fall neatly into the previous definition without saying the words "demagogue", "opportunism", and "simplistic". It's more of a practical characterization than a definition.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#28

Post by tomComb »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #2

> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…

You’ve made a big leap in your assumption about how populism produced less economic activity.

Maybe populism’s disregard for democratic institutions resulted in more corruption which hurt growth?

Neither of us know.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#29

Post by RandomLensman »

willis936 wrote: post #13
nonrandomstring wrote: post #2

> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…

That Nazi regime accomplished a lot of work. Hitler is history's most successful populist. Did he help Germany's bottom line?

By what measure was Hitler a successful populist? He needed other parties to get into power and then a huge suppression apparatus to stay in power.

Re: The economic cost of populism

#30

Post by Tainnor »

willis936 wrote: post #13
nonrandomstring wrote: post #2

> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…

That Nazi regime accomplished a lot of work. Hitler is history's most successful populist. Did he help Germany's bottom line?

German cities in rubble and a divided Germany. That's the result of Nazi rule. It probably didn't help Germany's bottom line.
Post reply on HN