"The Invisible Hand" on CBC radio

CBC radio is running a new program this summer on economics; it's called "The Invisible Hand". The first episode is scheduled to be broadcast Wednesday morning (this Wednesday - June 27) at 9:30 am and will be re-broadcast the following Saturday morning at 11:00 am. (Half an hour later in Newfoundland, of course.)

I am well-placed to tell you that the show is much, much better than you may be thinking and that you should give it a listen.

A few weeks ago, the producers of the show sent me a clip of their first episode and asked for feedback. One of the things that goes with feeling free to complain about media coverage of economic issues is that if you're asked for feedback, you're pretty much obliged to give it. They can't get it right if you won't tell them what's wrong. I started playing the clip with a distinct lack of enthusiasm, expecting inpenetrable, ponderous declamations and the repeated use of the prefix "neo-".

I was quickly and happily disabused of that prejudice. I'm not going to get into the specifics - listen for yourself. But what struck me is that they were trying to teach basic economic concepts in a clear and entertaining way. Even better, it did so with the sense of playfulness and delight in reaching counter-intuitive conclusions that all good economists have. (If you need an example, read some of Nick's posts.) Most impressively, that first episode got the ideas right, even though it was put together without the safety net of an in-house economist. Based on that first episode, I was happy to sign on as a consultant for the rest of the series. The good ideas are all theirs; if there are places where the economics is off, then the fault is mine for not catching it.

Listening to "The Invisible Hand" isn't going to turn you into a trained economist, but it will give you a better understanding about how economists think. And you'll have fun while you're at it.

Comments

[Andrew Coyne]

If they're calling the show "The Invisible Hand" I'm suspicious. It is the favourite epithet of those who think economics is some kind of occult religion: "see, they worship an invisible hand!"

[Stephen Gordon]

They explain the term right away in the first episode, and correctly. It was the thing that jolted me out of my disinterest.

[tomslee]

When I read the post I thought: "If they're calling the show 'The Invisible Hand' I'm suspicious. It is the favourite talisman of those who think economics is some kind of exact science: "just let the invisible hand solve it!"

[Frances Woolley]

"How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?" "None, the invisible hand will do it."

[Justin]

Sounds interesting. Hopefully it will be as good (or at least as interesting) as the Planet Money podcasts that NPR does.

I really love those.

[Sandwichman]

"the sense of playfulness and delight in reaching counter-intuitive conclusions"

Correction: the sense of playfulness and delight in reaching SOME counter-intuitive conclusion... (and disparaging others that don't fit the economists' credo).

[Shangwen]

Stephen, since you recommend it, I will grumpily dust off and de-cobweb the CBC button on my radio. If they interview Tim Harford, I'm sold.

There also is/was a good podcast by the same name out of MIT, about economics for managers.

[Mandos]

Oh boy. Another outlet for Freakonomicist propaganda?

[Steve]

@mandos - yea you tell 'em man. I mean the CBC is an outlet for all this darwinist evoluntion progaganda as well.
/sarcasm off

Human beings have been engaging in market activity for 10's of thousands of years. Study of any mesolithic culture reveals some degree of specialisation , division of labour and trade. Maybe it's time to lump the economics deniers in with the climate change deniers and the creationists.

----
To WCI moderators
In a grumpy mood today so feel free to moderate this any way you want

[Shangwen]

OK, I listened to the first half (it's on the page Stephen links to), and confirm it's pretty good. They even interviewed Mike Munger! They tackle a topic that tends to be a flashpoint in the differences between popular and informed views of economics.

[Linda]

The producer contacted me about one segment - on moral hazard, - and I signed on. Have yet to hear the final version of that segment, but the interviewing part was fun.

[Frances Woolley]

Linda, excellent, I'll have to listen for you! I'm on the perverse incentives show. Unfortunately I have a feeling my insightful discussions of whack-a-mole won't make it on air.

Here's a question for everyone: what can the CBC do to make this show useable longer-term for people who teach high school econ or econ 1000?

[Stephen Gordon]

Good question. As someone who has read several scripts and listened to a few episodes (they're still working on it!), this is definitely going to be a valuable teaching resource. It would be great if there could be a (stable!) URL where the episodes could all be archived.

[Linda]

Stephen, do you have much info on who they talked with on the show? When the producer contacted me, I asked "why me?" - general curiosity more than anything else. He said something to the effect that there are always lots of "middle-aged white men" willing to give opinions, and he wanted some diversity...Middle aged white women may be a step to that?

[jt]

WCI should pitch CBC on a TV show (singly, or perhaps as a collective like, History Detectives or Arcade Fire). We're at peak economics right now and a global financial crisis would be a terrible thing to waste. This could be the defining moment for many kids out there like those who watched David Suzuki in the 70s. With an economist as PM, even CBC would get funded ... wouldn't they? Seriously.

[alanc230]

Can we listen to it in the eastern United States?

[Mandos]

Maybe it's time to lump the economics deniers in with the climate change deniers and the creationists.

Yes, economists would love to take on the mantle of, you know, actual science. Sorry, you can't have that pony.

[Stephen Gordon]

Linda - I don't know who they talked to until after the fact. It looks as though they were calling lots of econ profs, and since they're based in Vancouver, names like yours would have come up. I know that other BC-based econ profs were contacted.

[jt]

Had a listen to the first episode. Personally, if you want to reach a wide audience, you need to follow Nova or the Nature of Things, as examples. People don't really want to learn about supply and demand, even if it is presented in an interesting way (like this episode). Similarly, there is a big difference between public science education and teaching science. Nova does the former not the latter. The episode also created further disconnect by not really exploring the policy implications ... is scalping/gouging really only about supply and demand, or is it really about gangsterism with rich end customers? What about the kid who lined up at noon lunch break to get tickets to the Leafs, only to be beat by a bunch of thugs who lined up at 9 am, who later flips them to some investment banker? What about the father of five who rode his mountain bike 30 km to get ice, only to find every store was cleaned out by the gougers?

[Stephen Gordon]

There's only so much you can do in the time available. I suspect that the producers' response would be "Fair enough. Which 5 minutes should we cut out?" If people learn enough to start asking questions like that on their own, that's still something.

As I said, listening to the series isn't going to be the same thing as taking years of formal training.

[jt]

BTW I'm not an economist. And, I didn't mean to appear to criticize the podcast in general nor to criticize its effectiveness to help teach Econ 101. But rather, I see the present situation as a missed opportunity to bring economics to the core of Canadian discussion. Teaching basic economics is not the way to do that. Rather, the economic principles as applied to important issues that people are already engaged with is where the CBC should focus. In fact, WCI posts, like the recent ones on "Dutch disease" are exactly what is relevant, engaging and politically important to a wide audience of Canadians who have to vote (indirectly) for an economic platform.

[Ginna]

Frances, I don't know how useful this is to ECON 101, but the show is available as a podcast from iTunes. (Search for CBC Invisible Hand) Haven't listened yet, but did subscribe.

This is now how I listen to CBC "radio", and has been for quite a while. I never actually listen to the "radio" anymore. I'm not even sure I have one in the house...

[Stephen Gordon]

jt, teaching basic economics is exactly what's necessary. I've seen too many pundits try to fake their way though analyses without understanding the basics. It's not pretty, and it subtracts from public understanding.

[Frances Woolley]

Linda - "he wanted some diversity" - I wonder if people realize how much tokens hate tokenism? I'm sure that's not the only reason they called you, though.

[Determinant]

Can we listen to it in the eastern United States?

Yes. CBC does not restrict content to Canada-only, as far as I know, unlike the BBC. CBC Radio is ad-free so it's subsidized to everyone, and CBC long ago accepted that leakage of signals to the US would occur, and it wasn't a bad thing. Actually if an American listens to CBC it gets counted as a plus.

You'd be best to download it.

On a tangent I have a friend who used to be responsible for keeping tabs on the 38 Canadian Studies departments at US universities. The federal Public Service knows who and where these departments are, organizes conferences, keeps them wined and dined, and dispatches guest speakers as necessary. That why the Canadian ambassador to the US went on a junket to speak at such a department to the University of Idaho.

It all falls under the category of "Making Friends and Influencing People".

Second, pray that this new series is not like that atrocity that Nova made called "Commanding Heights". That was a pure hack job on Keynesianism using the old saw that Keynesianism = Central Planning. Not true.

[Kailer]

"How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?" "None, the invisible hand will do it."
The invisible hand does do most of it. It mines the tungsten and filters the argon out of the air, processes the glass, assembles it all, transports it to your local grocery store, all you do is stand on a latter and turn your wrist a couple times, a rather trivial step in the whole process. And even then, all non-residential lightbulbs and even some residential ones are changed by paid workers, so I would hazard to guess that most light bulbs are changed by the invisible hand. Just saying.

[Mandos]

The invisible hand does do most of it. It mines the tungsten and filters the argon out of the air, processes the glass, assembles it all, transports it to your local grocery store, all you do is stand on a latter and turn your wrist a couple times, a rather trivial step in the whole process. And even then, all non-residential lightbulbs and even some residential ones are changed by paid workers, so I would hazard to guess that most light bulbs are changed by the invisible hand. Just saying.

It doesn't do any of it. People do all those things.

[Matthew Lazin-Ryder]

Kailer, I think I may have to use that in the show.

[Dee]

"Here's a question for everyone: what can the CBC do to make this show useable longer-term for people who teach high school econ or econ 1000?"

How about Adam's definition of 'The Invisible Hand'? Seriously, I've heard some economists mangle it.

Definitions of GDP, difference between fiscal and monetary policy (how it relates in the world of finance), and demand/supply. The ideas from some the more well known economists, the live and dead ones.

Thank you for the heads up.

[Miriam G]

Wow - I thought the first episode was really dumbed-down, and barely touched on really important variables like personal wealth. I would have liked to hear something way more nuanced. There are a whole lot of in-between solutions around price gouging/fixing. I think this show is insulting to listeners' intelligence.

[Shangwen]

I am really going to defend this show, because I think they have done a good job not only in balancing all their limitations, but in providing good content in the first episode. They have 27 minutes on commercial radio. This is not a 2-hour podcast off some crank's blog, or a university lecture, or an overlong rant by unwashed grad students. If you want an introduction to STATA, with time for Q+A, look elsewhere.

A great podcast is one that introduces a wide audience to a new way of thinking, and stimulates them to learn more elsewhere. On commercial radio, Tim Harford's More or Less on the BBC is a great example: he discusses statistics in an intelligent but accessible way, and makes a seemingly impenetrable area more interesting. Based on the first episode, I think Matthew and his team are on the same path.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd

[Jason David Strauss]

I've written a public response to this CBC Radio show "The Invisible Hand," on a public Facebook Note.

You can access that note here:https://www.facebook.com/notes/jason-david-strauss/cbc-radio-shows-the-invisible-hand-has-invisible-logic-claims-price-gouging-is-g/10151038766145751

Here is a clip from my Note:

Dear Producers, Writers, Editors, Organizers and Host of the CBC Radio Show “The Invisible Hand,”

Your basic argument is that price-gouging leads to economic efficiency but you fail to elevate your argument to the status of “price gouging always leads to economic efficiency.” Why do you not go all-in and claim that price gouging always leads to economic efficiency? And if you know that price-gouging does not always lead to economic efficiency, why have you not clarified this to your listeners. It would appear, therefore, that you have intended to mislead the public.

Sincerely,
Jason David Strauss, M.A., Economics

CBC radio owes the public an on-air correction and apology.

[hjm]

Only caught part of the show and it was interesting. Just finished listening to it again. Unfortunatly, it seemed the case studys (CBC test panel) and examples (Mississippi law) were chosen to support a pre-determined "counter-intutive" economic theory rather than explore reality. Although each test panel member was provided a motivation none of it realistically bridged the gap between wants (hockey tickets) and needs (generators for survival) nor was the "capacity or ability to pay" based on motivation integrated.

During and/after a large scale emergency scarce resources need to be controlled for the common good, it is not a free market economy. Most Emergency Management Legislation (during a state of local emergency) have the power to control (fix) prices and commandeer (at fair market value) scarce resources. This is different from anti-gouging legislation.

[Stephen Gordon]

Heh. This is going to be an interesting summer on CBC radio. Who says Econ 101 is boring?

[westslope]

Good to hear that the CBC is taking economics seriously.

It has been a weak point of the CBC for decades.