The economics profession might seem a little crazy from the outside. Some believe there are so many assumptions in economics that it feels unreal. Some say economists can't find solutions to poverty but can write thousands of pages on why we are poor. Many even believe economists are mean and only think about money. Critics also say they hardly agree with each other. And there are those who say they complicate matters by saying, "Yes, the policy may achieve this objective, but on the other hand, ..."
The last habit bothers politicians a lot. Harry Truman, former US President, demanded a 'one-handed economist' who would stop saying "on the one hand... on the other hand." He was complaining about economists' tendency to add a caveat to every argument. One can understand the frustration of a leader who wants to implement a policy and hear a clear answer. These caveats, the other hand, act like a hindrance or hiccup in the journey. This may come across as cowardice or a failure to be decisive. But that's not the case. This is an honest admission of the consequences that the leader may miss out on.
Today's mix of political polarisation and democratised economic commentary has pushed the demand for one‑handed economists higher than ever.
The Value of the Other Hand
Traditionally, economists mostly worked inside governments, central banks, international agencies, and academic departments. Their ideas moved through slow, formal channels such as policy notes, budget committees, research papers, and newspapers. In these communications, nuance was necessary. The best economists are those who could explain a policy's costs to supporters and critics. The 'other hand' argument helped leaders see the trade‑offs and build consensus.
Paul Volcker's disinflation from 1979 to 1982 is the easiest way to see two‑handed economics in action. He didn't sugarcoat anything. He told the Carter and Reagan teams that bringing inflation down meant a deep recession and high unemployment. Treasury officials warned that Congress would step in once unemployment reached 7%. Unemployment did cross that level, but that didn't stop Volcker. Everyone knew the costs upfront, and that honesty gave him enough political room. Inflation fell, and the Fed regained credibility. That's how two‑handed economics worked. We can argue about whether the decision was right or wrong. But when the trade‑offs, costs, and benefits are clear at the start, things usually move in a better direction.
India's 1991 reforms were even more difficult. The team led by the Prime Minister PV Narsimharao and Finance Minister Dr Manmohan Singh sought consensus within a weak coalition government with a very visible 'other hand' at play.
But it doesn't mean economists' souls were pure, untouched by ideology or ambition. Economists have always had priors, biases and ideological preferences. But the institutional architecture made it sound and feel more intellectual and unbiased.
Why One-Handed Economists Are Winning
Politicians today are more polarised and less interested in nuance. They want support for the position they already hold. A ruling party wants a one‑handed economist who will give technical cover for decisions already made. The opposition wants a one‑handed economist who will say the policy is a disaster. In this environment, the 'other hand' doesn't help manage trade‑offs. It only weakens the argument each side wants to push.
In the past few decades, this has aggravated, thanks to 24-hour news channels and social media. Explaining things to common people, getting in five-minute heated debates, and social media's engagement-driven algorithm mean rewarding simplification and taking sides.
A claim like "the minimum wage will destroy small businesses" or "the minimum wage lifts workers out of poverty" spreads fast. But a careful line like "the impact depends on market power, labour‑demand elasticity, capital substitution, and enforcement" goes nowhere.
Then, there's another problem. Because anyone can become an influencer, there are many pseudo‑economists around us. They use charts and percentages to push partisan takes that look like real analysis. That's the technical smokescreen. Sometimes even actual economists resort to these techniques.
What's At Stake?
When a political base has been told over and over that their preferred policy is perfect, any 'other hand' feels threatening. So politicians stick to the single versions. Over time, this creates a ratchet effect: each round of such messaging makes it harder to admit trade‑offs, which makes the next round even more one‑handed.
When experts, influencers or economists simplify, take a side, and avoid nuance, the collective output is bad for everyone, and the quality of economic discourse collapses. This also explains why trust in economic expertise has eroded. It's the predictable outcome of a system that rewards performance over analysis.
Final Take
What does all this mean? And what should be done about it? Frankly, I don't know. None of this means economists who speak publicly are compromised. I just hope that the world recognises the need for nuanced conversations and appreciates all angles in such debates.
Good advice doesn't hide the other hand. It reckons with both hands and then makes a clear recommendation.
For example, the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under NAFTA. Economists who supported free trade admitted it would create losers. That's why TAA began. In India, experts knew that states would lose revenue after implementing GST, and thus, needed compensation. The GST law created an in-built mechanism for that compensation. However, when the other hand is absent from policy design, the losers do not disappear. They come up in different forms which policymakers had to deal with separately.
It's a fair ask of Harry Truman to get a one-handed economist because leaders need to make quick decisions. But he didn't get any because the real world is more complex. The purpose of economics is not to eliminate difficult choices. It is to ensure that when we make them, we know what they will cost.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NDTV Profit or its affiliates. Readers are advised to conduct their own research or consult a qualified professional before making any investment or business decisions. NDTV Profit does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented in this article.
ALSO READ: You Pass More Than Trauma To Next Generation | The Reason Why
Essential Business Intelligence, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice, Daily Fuel, Gold and Silver Prices and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.