Economics in Public Discourse

I've been thinking about a problem that I think is pretty serious: how to conduct debate on economic matters. A big problem is allocation of the burden of proof. So for instance, many economics students would like the burden of proof to be on anyone who wants to curtail the market in any way. This is questionable, for two reasons. First, economics itself recognizes all kinds of exceptions to free-market doctrine, so it's unclear why we would start with a presumption that it is correct. More importantly, though, economics is a messy business. All too often you hear arguments along the lines of, "We know the minimum wage is bad, just look at this supply and demand graph." Economics shouldn't proceed deductively from the assumptions underlying some of its models. Those assumptions are methodological shortcuts, not empirical commitments. The best way to tell the effects of the minimum wage is to roll up your sleeves and do some empirical work.

On the other hand, I admit that in my own mind I use the market as a starting point for thinking about most policy questions. Time is scarce, and people need a way of organizing their thoughts about policy. Among organizing principles, "First consider the market solution" isn't a bad one. Where exceptions are known, they can be explained and debated. It should be noted, though, that the average person (or voter) isn't going to devote the time or attention necessary to understand all the exceptions to the efficiency of the market.

So I don't really know what to think. Simplistic economic arguments seem to dominate public debate, to the point that Democrats are called "unprincipled" for supporting a minimum wage increase. This seems crazy, but I just don't know how average people should think about economics. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's just a cudgel used to intimidate liberals. I don't know how to get the good without the bad, although it couldn't hurt for liberals to get comfortable with economics and use it to defend their policies.