For better or worse?

Three recent news items and blog posts make a provocative contrast:

Paul Krugman, New York Times,  "The MIT Gang"

It’s actually surprising how little media attention has been given to the dominance of M.I.T.-trained economists in policy positions and policy discourse.... 

James Bartholomew, The Spectator, "British economics graduates have left a trail of misery around the world"

"... the trendy doctrines of our universities have much to answer for" 

(A list that in terms of needless human suffering, is pretty astounding)

Yannis Palaiologos, Politico, Beware of American econ professors!  

World-famous economists — men of Nobel prizes and stellar academic accomplishment — have provided intellectual cover to radicals who appeared at best to be willing to take a stupendously reckless gamble with Greece’s financial, political and geopolitical future, 

To belabor the obvious: Be careful what you wish for.

It is indeed surprising that  little media attention has been given to the dominance of economists trained at MIT in the 1970s in policy positions in US and international organizations.  If a similar dominance from, say, Chicago, or skull and bones, were noticed under a Republican administration and center-right european politics, the media would likely be full of a vast nepotistic right-wing conspiracy.

And given just how much popular opinion thinks of current economic management, it is surprising that Krugman wants more attention to that fact. If the media were to give proper attention, it's not clear they wouldn't write stories like spectator and politico!

Just because politicians find your advice useful, temporarily, doesn't mean you're right. The Spectator article offers chilling counterexamples.