I am happy to be a small part of the economic-political debate in Latvia but I am at times not happy about the debate, or should I say, the lack of debate. I have heard time and again that it is better if negative news is kept silent as their publication might frighten some people; I have often been accused of being overly negative and pessimistic and then there is this single issue one should preferably not discuss at all as a certain lecturer in Ventspils found out recently.
I disagree but I still find it hard to understand why this attitude towards hush-hush is so prevalent.
A comment on one of my recent blogs motivated this blog:
consequence 12.11.2008 11:21
"I think it is pretty irresponsible for an economist to be telling the "truth" about the severe situation in the Latvian economy. If the author would provide specific suggestions on how to recover then this piece would be valuable; right now, I’m afraid, it is just likely to scare people and make the crisis more severe. What is the purpose of this blog entry?"
Thank you, consequence, for your entry. Although I disagree with you I appreciate your point of view – and I might even cave in, partly, to one of your comments.
Just like we might be suspicious with respect to a used car salesman so we can be suspicious of real estate sales people promising a quick turnaround in the property market, of bankers saying ‘no problem’, of politicians saying ‘nothing special’ etc – not just here but everywhere. My own country (which is Denmark, not Sweden…..) has sadly been a good example recently that such suspicion is plain sensible.
Here, quite frankly, independent economists can play a valuable role. I think it is their duty to inform how they see the situation, whether rosy or the blackest of black. Then the market (i.e. the readers) decides – poor analysts will eventually not be read and will leave… I just don’t like the idea that it should be better for us to go around as uninformed cattle – we should have available all relevant information, be it positive or negative, based on which we can make decisions.
OK, independent economists should also be careful not to go too far. Just like a 0-0 game is usually boring in football, plain sailing for the economy can be boring for an economist. We should be careful not to be too pessimistic (or optimistic) – not to "spice up" our forecasts – but, then again, if one makes too many foolish mistakes one will eventually face the verdict of the readers, won’t one?
And if the debate was more open and broad, wouldn’t fewer people get scared, as "consequence" writes it, from bad news?
And wouldn’t, eventually, the far too rumour-driven Latvian society become more, ahem, normal – based more on facts and analysis than on crazy rumours?
Or am I just naive, influenced as I am, by being in Christmas mode?
PS And to those who think I am overly negative and pessimistic – you should have listened to the speech by Paul Krugman, this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, at the Stockholm School of Economics (in Stockholm) on 12 December – that is when I almost got scared myself…..
Pievieno komentāru