In this age of division, chaos & confusion, pity the economist who’s asked about political policy.

The Latin phrase “Hic sunt dracones“, translates roughly to “Here be dragons”. Historically, it marked dangerous or unexplored territories on maps and early globes. The maps were often illustrated with mythical dragons and beasts, a dire warning to anyone daring to venture that far. Death is certain.

For economists, weighing in on political issues can get us into trouble. Here be dragons!

I’ve always believed we give our politicians both too much credit, and too much blame, for what goes on in the economy.

The really big economic problems, the ones that turn into recessions or depressions, are typically not related to a government action. The crash of 1929, the energy crisis of the 1970s, and the financial collapse of 2008 were caused more by human greed than bad government policy.

Yet governments are not off the hook. In all of these examples, governments were culpable because of insufficient oversight or regulation. And at least in the case of the Great Depression that followed the 1929 stock market crash, it was bad fiscal policies of the American federal government that made matters worse.

Then they are the ironies and inconsistencies that economists struggle to explain. The best example is one we’re currently living through: the relative resilience of the U.S. economy in the face of the tariff tantrums. True, we haven’t finished this chapter yet, and there could be a larger slowdown coming. But nearly 9 months after the first tariffs were announced, the economy remains in decent shape, and stock markets are at record highs.

Without question, good public policy does matter to the economy. And economists are nearly unanimous when it comes to certain policies. Tariffs are not recommended. Nor are price controls, senseless regulations and reckless deficit spending.

The problem is the current climate of extreme political polarization. To offer an economic perspective or opinion of a government policy is to throw oneself headlong into a political position, usually without meaning to.

I have my own personal scars.

I’ve been called a “knuckle-dragging capitalist pig” and supporter of conservative politicians. Also, I’ve been labeled a “woke lib-tard.”

I always welcome and invite intelligent, thoughtful counter arguments to anything I say. But name calling gets us nowhere.

Economics and politics are not the same thing. But they are adjacent. It’s impossible to comment on the economy without veering into political territory.

Many economists want to take firm political positions, aligning themselves with one party or another. And that is fine. But for those economists who want to remain politically neutral – which is important to many of us – I offer three strategies to manage when asked to comment:

1. Offer both sides of the argument. Start your answer with “There are a couple of ways to look at the problem.” You can still end up on one side or the other, but you’ve given some credibility to both perspectives.
2. Start your answer with “The question is more about politics than economics, and I’m not a political analyst. But here’s a perspective from an economist…”  That neutralizes the question and makes it clear: you’re not here to support one political viewpoint.
3. Legitimize the issue. “That’s a question I get asked a lot, and I know it’s on a lot of people’s minds at the moment.”  This gets the audience (and the question asker) on your side. And whatever you say after that, they’ll be less likely to call you names and label you a “lib-tard.”

It’s not easy these days. The world feels upside down. Political theatre is toxic everywhere. And as economists, it’s impossible to completely avoid taking a position. The best we can do is proceed with caution. HERE BE DRAGONS!