Talk:Jared Bernstein

Objectivity

This article as it is posted on June 1 2011 is clearly objective and within guidlines.

Beisenbe (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the following three sentences be added to the section on Publications.

"A search of EconLit shows that Mr. Bernstein has not yet published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal. EconLit, the American Economic Association's electronic database, is the world's foremost source of references to economic literature. The database contains more than 1.1 million records from 1886-present."

I think this is relevant information because, although Mr. Bernstein is often listed as an economist, his Ph.D. is in Social Welfare. He has not published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal and, thus, is not recognized as an economist by professional economists. His expertise is in social policy -- not scientific research in economics.

Let me know what you think.

I think you are correct. I looked this up because Bernstein just made a fool of himslef on MSNBC. His "opinions" regarding the timing of the effects of fiscal stimulus are smthg that any PhD economist would laugh at- he thinks such effects are instantaneous. His argument is also an example of the post-hoc fallacy. Such pseudo economists make my profession look bad. D.W.M. Ph.D.

Ebw343 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC) ebw343

Hello Ebw343. :-) I saw your comment/question on the BLP noticeboard and reviewed your addition to the article. It looks to me that the material was removed because it was original research. On Wikipedia we do not engage in independent fact finding through interviews or research. Instead, Wikipedia editors rely on reliable sources to cover a topic, then we add the material to an article. So, your search of the EconLit database is original research and can not be added to the article. In order for this information to be added to an article, a reliable secondary source will need to report it first. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatnot, etc

There is no need whatsoever to list what the subject of a Wikipedia article is not! Only where there is a clearly notable misunderstanding about the article's subject should editors dare clarify something - and even then with extreme caution. I must remind my fellow editors the very strict guidelines of the Wikipedia rule on Biographies of Living Persons. As a secondary observation, please refrain from loaded terms (e.g. "Jew") and unsubstantiated opinions. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Economist?

I'm going to object to the description of Bernstein as an 'American economist'. Bernstein holds no doctorate in economics and has currently authored precisely zero publications in mainstream economics journals.

If you do research into Bernstein's background what you will learn is that he is a labor activist and big union mouthpiece who is placed in economic advisory roles by left-wing politicians. He is the economic equivalent to an Exxon-Mobile executive who is made 'head scientist' at a right-wing think tank.

Whoever edited this article needs to seriously consider coming up with a more accurate description of this guy. I'll check back here in the near future. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

He is an economist. He is not publishing in the academic literature, but nobody is calling him an academic economist. A Ph.D. in economics is not a requirement, like ordination, to be called an economist. Many right-wing economists come out of and go back into the corporate world and don't have a Ph.D. in economics either. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay so I'm assuming you apply the same standards to oil executives who call themselves "scientists" and are hired by think tanks as "scientists" to poke holes in global warming theory?

Bernstein is not an economist and is not recognized as an economist by anyone outside the fringe bubble of left-wing think tanks. I'm going to review the criteria for professional titles on here and might open up a section on the NPOV page.Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

And by the way -my opinion on 'right-wing' pseudo-economists is the same. This is not about 'left' or 'right' but an individual whose claim to the title of 'economist' is dubious at best. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

He worked for the Department of Labor as an economist. He worked for VP Joe Biden as an economist. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman calls him an economist. He's an economist. Cullen328 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This was discussed on the NPOV noticeboard and the consensus was "reliable sources call him an economist, therefore he's an economist." I accept this conclusion.

Although there was one editor who was of the opinion that titles like 'economist', 'scientist' or 'historian' should be reserved for academics to avoid confusion. I agree with him on this point but we appear to be in the minority. Bernstein is not in fact an 'academic economist'; he operates primarily in the think tank/policy-making world and he has relatively few mainstream economic publications to his name. Almost all of his research is published in 'heterodox' or basically fringe journals where they are not actually performing scientific research. Something to consider.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to delve deeper into the facts regarding Mr. Bernstein, note his Masters & Doctorate degrees are in Social Work, NOT economics. If more proof is needed you may wish to forward to 39:48 of Dan Bongino's podcast from 8 May, 2024 titled The Stormy Clown Show Flops HUGE in NY (Ep. 2245) - 05/08/2024 (rumble.com) JoePhoneMonkey (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1 I second your opinion. Alexysun (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see this recent RS. Some of OP's comments may not be BLP compliant. Please exercise due restraint. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a little off-topic but related. Consider this statement made by Don Barry, an astrophysicist from Cornell, regarding the question of whether science popularizer Neil DeGrasse Tyson is an "astrophysicist":

"Not since graduate school (he did not successfully progress towards a degree at UT/Austin, and convinced Columbia to give him a second try). Aside from the obligatory papers describing his dissertation, he's got a paper on how to take dome flats, a bizarre paper speculating about an asteroid hitting Uranus, and courtesy mentions *very* late in the author lists of a few big projects in which it is unclear what, if anything, of substance he contributed. No first author papers of any real significance whatsoever. Nor is the [sic] there any evidence that he has been awarded any telescope time on significant instruments as PI since grad school, despite the incredibly inflated claims in his published CVs. He cozied up to Bush and pushed Bush's version of man to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, and now gets appointed to just about every high level political advisory board. To an actual astronomer, this is almost beyond inconceivable. It's just bizarre. To answer Delon's question, no: he is not a practicing astrophysicist - Don Barry, Ph.D. Dept of Astronomy, Cornell University" (scroll down to the relevant section [1])

I think most academic economists would be very, very hesitant to describe JB as an economist. Unlike JB, Tyson does actually have a Phd in the field he claims to represent, but he's got almost no papers to his name and has had no impact on any area of space science. And, similar to JB, most of Tyson's apppointments are highly political in nature. When I first opened this section, I wrote that JB had "precisely zero" mainstream publications to his name. Well, after seeking a third opinion, a couple of editors managed to dig up one or two Bernstein publications in a mainstream journal, but these are the exception and could be counted on one hand (with perhaps as little as 2 fingers). And there is also the fact that, while it's usually difficult to discern what, if any, political leanings an academic economist might have, most of JB's "research" just so happens to lend support to ideas that are popular on only one side of the political divide.

So let's recap: No Phd in the field, no teaching experience, an odd paper or two in mainstream journals, and no recognition as an economist outside the world of politics. My personal opinion is that JB is a policy analyst and activist, and that these terms describe his relationship with the economics discipline more accurately. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick follow-up to the RS you cited way back -I would just reiterate the point that the NYT piece is consistent with most sources discussing JB. He's an economist in the world of politics just as Tyson's an astrophysicist on TV and in pop culture. Outside this sphere, there is a whole other world of research going on and Bernstein isn't a part of that discourse. Refer to this piece by Robert Kuttner in a progressive publication:

"And as one who has been an economic writer and critic without a Ph.D. in economics, it charms me that Jared Bernstein’s doctorate from Columbia is from the school of social work, where he studied social welfare policy, not from the economics department. That probably saved him from a lifetime of sterile modeling in favor of inquiry into the real economy."[2]

Unfortunately, "sterile modeling" is exactly what economists do in their careers. And they tend to do so objectively without any preconceived notions about how things should work or what policies to pursue.

Bizarrely, Kuttner also writes:

"Even Bernstein’s detractors, if he has any, would consider him a real economist."

So if JB's credentials as an economist are unquestionable, why would anyone write such a thing? Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up on last section

There seems to be agreement that "economist" is not the right word to describe JB, but there's since been some back and forth over terms like "government official" vs. "musician and social worker."

Here's a little thought experiment: if JB weren't active in politics (in the world of partisan think tanks and government appointments), how would we describe him on here? He's not known as a 'musician' (an undergraduate degree in music doesn't pass the notability test), and he wouldn't be known as an economist either. I would argue that he probably wouldn't have a Wiki page at all, but if he did it would probably have something to do with his doctorate in social work, if he pursued a research career in that area.

I think "government official" is the more accurate and neutral term, and is exactly where JB's employed at the moment and the reason he's making news. I also support mention that he's Biden's "chief economist" -since that's his title in the administration -but readers should not be misled to believe a president has the power to mint new economists. Presidents can appoint whoever they want to these posts; whether or not the individual has the appropriate background is another question. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

MMT documentary quote

Re: the information about his quote in the MMT documentary, I think there needs to be a reliable source that's not an explicitly partisan think tank (i.e. FEE), or else the notability of is in question. There also should not be undue weight given to a particular viewpoint, whether through the writing or through the contextlessness or the quote Reflord (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Here you go:

• Knoxville News Sentinel[3] "Chair Jared Bernstein apparently doesn't understand that printing paper currency is irrelevant to a discussion of the federal debt."
• Fox Business[4] ""The U.S. government can't go bankrupt, because we can print our own money," Bernstein says in the video. He was then asked by the interviewer, "Like you said, they print the dollar, so why does the government even borrow?" Bernstein's reply seems to indicate uncertainty – at best – about monetary policy."
• Mises Institute[5] "Bernstein is asked about the federal government’s borrowing process and he stumbles and bumbles, saying “The US government can’t go bankrupt because we can print our own money.” It gets worse from there."

The FEE is not partisan, it is libertarian, but not affiliated with the Libertarian Party, and there is no reason not to include a think tank's viewpoints, attributed to them. Ditto for Mises - they are used all over Wikipedia

If there are other viewpoints that support Bernstein on this issue, you can add them. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

it's important that all the sources so far have had pretty clear viewpoints about the statements, are op-eds, and/or or are from explicitly ideological think tanks. For a WP:BLP, I think there should be a clearly neutral source just reporting about the incident without weighing in on it, unless the section just says something like "Bernstein was criticized by right-wing people for alleged statements in a MMT documentary" Reflord (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That characterization is incorrect. Fox Business is not a think tank, and the article I provide is not an op-ed. It simply reports on the event. And as I wrote above, there's nothing wrong with providing criticism from prominent think tanks, attributed to them.

Are you seriously doubting he said that statement, giving all the sources provided so far? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This touches on an issue that extends into other areas of economics on here -exactly what is a 'neutral' reliable source? Even though the Mises Institute is unaffiliated with any major (or minor) political party, they are partisan in an ideological sense and the brand of economics they promote (Austrian economics) is fringe. On the other hand, they are probably right that Bernstein doesn't understand the monetary system, a point that's been made by other commentators who unfortunately don't qualify as RS on here.

This is the main problem covering someone who isn't a mainstream economist but is often described as an 'economist' in political news -we just don't have many objective reliable sources commenting on Bernstein's ideas, because JB doesn't publish any work in mainstream journals. All we have to go on are political policy debates in non-academic publications, and almost all of these source (for and against JB) are either partisan (in a political sense) or ideologically compromised (like Mises). Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fox Business is on the "not really a reliable source for politics" list for reliable sources (as is Fox News generally); the others are think tanks/op-eds, as mentioned.

w.r.t. the statement, without a solid news source just reporting on the statements there's not really anything we can put in a WP:BLP - video clips can be edited deceptively, taken out of context, etc. I think unless we have a source that's clearly reliable we shouldn't put it in.

re: criticism from a think tank, we should be careful not to put Wikipedia:UNDUE weight on what is, as mentioned above, a think tank with a fringe or very clearly ideologically biased viewpoint in academic economics (FEE/Mises) Reflord (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed -Mises cannot be relied on even if they sometimes get it right. It isn't even our job to determine if a source is 'right or 'wrong', only that it's reliable. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mises can certainly be relied on for the opinions of Mises, and there is no question the Bernstein said what he said. You can watch the video yourself. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But can Mises be relied on as a mainstream source for economics? The simple fact that MI promotes "Austrian economics" indicates they are fringe. It is thus misleading to use them to counter something Jared Bernstein said, since MI and JB both hold fringe views of economics. Almost all of JB's research is published in left-leaning "heterodox" journals, while the Mises Institute either self-publishes or publishes in right-leaning heterodox journals.

I don't doubt that JB is confused about monetary economics, but what we need is a mainstream source saying this, and not a fringe, ideological think tank. The Mises Institute can certainly be relied on for opinions of Mises, as you say, but what does Mises have to do with Jared Bernstein? Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We aren't relying on Mises here for mainstream economics, or to counter JB's statement - only for their opinion about what JB said.

You can rely on Mises for accurately representing the Mises viewpoint, and then it becomes a question of how importnat that viewpoint is.

And the viewpoint that JB is confused about monetary economics was made by multiple sources, including mainstream sources like Fox Business, not just Mises. FEE is not fringe, and says the exact same thing. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean in the edit history. Bernstein's comment about "printing money" is strange on many levels but is it due for inclusion? FEE is another "libertarian think tank". Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there some rule against using libertarian think tanks? How is a libertarian think tank different from a liberal or conservative tanks ?

I think the threshold for including something is how much coverage it got - and this comment got a ton of coverage - in op-eds, in right-wing news outlets, and by thinks tanks. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I would stay away from any "think tank" with an ideological agenda -that includes the libertarians, but also left-wing labor think tanks like EPI. There are some think thanks that are widely recognized as nonpartisan, objective and reliable, and an example of one would be the Brookings Institution. The problem here is that none of your sources rank high on reliability like Brookings, and so there is a real question of whether the information is due for inclusion.

Personally, I think JB's comments about the monetary system were ignorant, but unfortunately typical. Unless something is notable beyond the usual right-wing partisan reactions to left-wing policymakers, we can't go reporting every silly thing this guy says about the economy.

It's very easy to find negative commentary on Bernstein, but I've searched really, really hard for critiques from mainstream economists or even nonpartisan think tanks that do economic research, and they just aren't there. I can't even find any articles in The Economist about Bernstein or his ideas.

Take this article by Matthew Yglesias[6]. Unfortunately, Yglesias is a "blogger and journalist," but he does make some interesting points:

"Biden is more heterodox than he lets on"

"The contemporary Democratic Party is in the grips of an ideology of expertism, which is distinct from (though related to) the actual idea of listening to experts. And one way that manifests itself is that while Trump would proudly tell you that he’s brushing off the ivory tower losers who don’t understand the pain of unemployment, Biden keeps citing fake academic consensus in favor of his policies."

"The authors of that book, Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein, were pretty distant from the mainstream of the economics profession."

I believe all these statements are factually correct, but unless we can find a reliable, mainstream source making this criticism, we can't include. There's nothing we can do if we can't find an RS that says what we want the article to say. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think what makes this notable beyond the typical "politician makes silly statement" is the fact that he holds a senior economic advisory position while lacking economic background , and THEN makes such a silly statement about economics.

That was explictly or implicitly called out in some of the criticism the statement received,

I also think you are conflating reliability and notability with partisanship,. Most sources have a bias, but that (alone) does not make them unreliable or non-notable. I'll grant you the FEE is not as prominent as Brookings, but many likewise less prominent thinks tanks are used all over Wikipedia, including your exmapel of EPI - and even used for facts, not just opinions - see We are the 99% or NAFTA's effect on United States employment Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

My point was that JB makes a lot of silly statements about the economy, so what's so special about this one? It's not like he's the head of the Treasury.

In fact, monetary policy is the role of the Federal Reserve (technically a private bank) and has nothing to do with the president's economic advisor. If the Fed chairman made a statement like that (which would never happen) it would raise eyebrows, but when Bernstein says it it's basically ignored by everyone except a handful of partisan organizations that will pounce on anything.

I agree that bias doesn't ipso facto make a source unreliable (otherwise every source will be unreliable, since anything written by a human will be biased). What I'm saying is that there's a difference between think tanks like FEE, Mises and EPI, and a think tank like Brookings. Even The Guardian has a significant left-leaning bias but doesn't function as an activist organization like EPI. As far as Fox Business goes, I'm not sure about that one. Fox is a massive media organization and generally not trustworthy in areas like science and politics, but not sure about business/economics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What makes this particular one 'special' is that a lot of sources treat it as special - and covered it accordingly. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick follow-up on the NAFTA article -yeah, they cited the EPI, and I'm completely opposed to that. The EPI is involved in anti-trade activism and is not a reliable source for trade economics (the section they're cited in is tagged as undue/controversial). The mainstream consensus on NAFTA is that it subtracted some jobs in import-competing industries and added some jobs in other sectors (as trade tends to do) and so overall there was no significant effect on employment. So, not a good example to defend the citing of think tanks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am neither defending nor opposing the use of think tanks - I am just saying it is not against Wikipedia practice, so it shouldn't be out of bounds to cite them here, either. EPI is cited in multiple articles- I gave you 2, but three are more. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, if a source is not reliable, then it is against policy. The article you linked on Nafta & US employment is actually a great example of why ideological think tanks like EPI aren't trustworthy. And the fact that they cited EPI in that article doesn't mean it's compliant with the rules -it just means that no one who knows any better is watching that page. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

But you haven't shown that a think tank like FEE is unreliable, only that it is libertarian.

And as I noted EPI is used in multiple articles, and in the other example I gave you, nothing is indicated as "controversial" Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

And I'm opposed to citing EPI in articles that have to do with trade or really any aspect of the economy -the fact that editors are citing this think tank doesn't mean it's reliable.

Would you like to open a new section on the RS noticeboard? I'd be happy to participate. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There s already a section about it there Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390 and I think the conclusion of that discussion is that it is fine to use it, even for facts! Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That was mainly to verify if a particular chart published by EPI could be used in an article, and it was also agreed that EPI could be used as a source of opinion on EPI itself (as they are used in their own article on here). But no consensus or even discussion took place about EPI as a reliable source for economics, let alone an authority on NAFTA as they're being used in the article you linked. Also read the last remark in that section by the editor Avatar:

"Note that at WP:RSP there are no think-tanks listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions,"

And this is basically what I'm saying here in so many words. If you want to open a new section there for more opinions, I will participate. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Surely you see the contradiction here- if EPI is not reliable, how can a chart published by EPI could be used in an article? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Because, for one thing, the EPI cited its data sources and, secondly, a chart is considered a calculation and calculations are not regarded as original research on Wikipedia. And out of the two charts in question, the first one had no y-axis and the OP was advised to stay away from that one -so only the second chart had consensus. One editor even recommended the OP generate the chart himself, since charts are calculations and thus not OR. So -no contradiction, just a consensus that certain charts published by the EPI may be permissible if there's a data tab and they're verifiable.

The Nafta article you linked does not merely use an EPI chart, but cites them as if they're an authoritative source on this subject. The consensus in the noticeboard you linked was essentially that EPI is an "activist organization" and should be avoided. Again, you are welcome to open up a new section there addressing these issues specifically. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If EPI uses another source for the chart- why not cite THAT source (which s presumably reliable), rather than the unreliable EPI? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not that EPI published a chart that they found in another source -it was their own chart, but they generated it using data in the Federal Reserve Economic Database, something the Wiki editor could've done himself. So, the question is, why do it yourself if you could just use the EPI chart? Calculations are not OR and so they could pretty much come from anywhere provided they're done correctly.

So, there was no consensus that EPI is RS, only that some charts published by EPI can be used in some articles. The prevailing opinion in that discussion was that think tanks like EPI are not RS. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

So we're back to square one - if it was their own chart, and they are unreliable - how can we use it? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this is going in circles now -using a chart is one thing, citing opinions/theories/statements etc from a think tank in an article is completely different. If an economist publishes a graph on Twitter, that may be used in an article, but it doesn't mean Twitter is RS. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)