MEGO Economics

"If you can't explain it to a 12-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein

MEGO -- My Eyes Glaze Over

   Our Dublin correspondent asks, "If the 'experts' on economics have such divergent views, how is the average person supposed to understand? As for politicians understanding, there is little chance of that. Mass media editors are not going to cover a subject if the audience switch off when their eyes glaze over."
   The MEGO phenomenon is certainly a problem when trying to explain a potentially complex issue, but it's a writer's task to phrase it in such a way as to make it understandable. Writing at the college graduate level is fine for academics who already understand the issue, but for a general interest newspaper, it's important to write at a level the reader can understand.
   Even the most complex issue can be explained at a seventh-grade level. This is not to say that the general public is unintelligent. The trick is not to bore them, or to talk over their heads. When writing about economics, aim for folks who don't have degrees in economics, but need to know about the issue anyway.
   President Harry Truman has been quoted as wishing for "a one-armed economist," since so many were in the habit of saying, "on the other hand ..." Others are fond of suggesting that if you ask two economists a question, you'll get at least three answers. As it is, an economist or a politician can point to any given data set and "prove" nearly anything. Or as Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." And Paul Krugman, the Princeton University economist and Nobel Laureate, has admitted that as a certified academic, he is quite capable of being as obtuse as any other academic, but he chooses not to, especially for his syndicated newspaper columns.
   When readers and viewers in the general public don't understand an economic issue, it's hardly their fault, even as the problems have an impact on daily life. In a way, says our Dublin correspondent, it's similar to quantum mechanics, where there are three states -- yes, no and maybe.
   This may well be true, especially when dealing with a continuing phenomenon. To drop another metaphor, "you can't step into the same river twice." In economics as a part of daily living, everything is always changing, so when economists attempt a prediction, they preface their forecasts with the "ceteris paribus" assumption. That is, "other things equal." And that can be a heroic assumption, to suggest holding all other contributing factors the same, with no changes, and just change one element, then such-and-so will happen. The problem is that in the real world everything is always changing. Some things may change more slowly than others, so it is possible to make some predictions. At the same time, the unexpected can jump in and change things immediately. The metaphorical river may continue its flow for years, but an earthquake can change its direction in seconds.
   The task for news writers, then, is to bring an important topic to the general reader in such a way that it is easily understandable, even at the risk of being overly simplistic. Good writers, however, can overcome that risk, by talking to their audience, not at them.