,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Yes – and actually a bit worse than that. CEOs who inject themselves into policy debate have a specific kind of bias (besides the obvious class bias): they're very susceptible to "seriousity" (my riff on "truthiness"); stuff that sounds serious when it isn't 1/
The most dramatic example right now is Howard Schultz going on about the evils of debt at the very time leading macroeconomic experts have concluded, based on careful evaluation of the evidence, that debt worries are vastly overblown 2/
But Dimon had his own episode (there may have been others); he was one of the biggest proponents of the idea that high US unemployment wasn't about inadequate demand and destructive austerity, it was about a "skills gap" 3/ politico.com/magazine/story…
Even at the time most economists who looked at the issue seriously had long since concluded that this was all wrong: if skilled workers were scarce, why weren't their wages rising? 4/ nytimes.com/2014/03/31/opi…
And history since then has been very unkind to the skills-gappers. But do you think Dimon has spent time asking why he was wrong, whether he was listening to the wrong people? Do you think he's even aware how wrong his call was? 5/ 
I mean, who would tell him? And that, aside from the fact that policy expertise and running a company are completely different domains, is why CEOs are so often terrible on policy 6/
