What Does "Pulitzer" Mean?

I ask the question due to my reading of an on-line article from the Oregonian.

The obtuse author writes briefly on Oregon's continued ascendancy toward the number one spot on the chart of unemployment. We are unemployed, with a bullet.

The prized graph of this obtuse author follows:

"Economists continue puzzling over Oregon's high unemployment rates, which result from more than just layoffs. People continue moving into the state, and both retirees and non-working spouses are seeking jobs, increasing the size of the labor force, which drives up unemployment."

It begs the question; "What economists? Or, which economists?"

Does one need be degreed in economics in order to be considered an economist? How much post-baccalaureate work needs to have been completed? Does one need the phud? (I don't know of any "masters" programs for econ at any major uni. Generally, masters were handed out to the guys who didn't make the phud cut.)

I believe that one needs only an understanding of economics to think like an economist. Mebbe it's reassuring to think that one has completed a certain body of work that allows oneself to claim a certain cache of Economist. How many of Chris Baum's papers must one have read to proclaim oneself "Economist"? Must one have a complete understanding of the Pigou Effect in order to have, or hold, certain beliefs about ones own wealth?

I don't think so. I've watched shoppers at the local supermarket, and rarely do I find expressions of surprise as clerks ring-up their customers' purchases. Which would be the case if the only way one could shop would be to receive from that market a randomly filled shopping cart that was issued to the shopper. Under this model, vegans would be buying meat. Men would be buying lipstick. And kids would be buying vitamin supplements.

And there would be expressions of surprise as their purchases were being toted up.

I see none of that.

Every customer of that supermarket is an economist. They enter the store with certain ideas about which products they will demand. And then they will attempt to satisfy that demand through such market signals as price and quality. Why do I buy Del Monte instead of the generic store brand? Quality. When Del Monte goes on sale do I buy more than usual? Yes.

So I puzzled by these "puzzled economists" written of by this obtuse author.

Oregon's central planning models are causing inefficiencies in the market place for labour. And there are a plethora of these inefficiencies.

Here's just a couple. What is Oregon's Minimum Wage Rate? $8.40 an hour. The federal rate? $6.55. So, for starters, there is this thirty percent premium one must pay to hire someone in Oregon rather than hiring this same entry-level worker in Idaho. Or North Dakota.

Building and new construction costs in Oregon are another barrier. The voters in the Metro area want to retain the park-like quality of their visits to the Coast, so they have put in place rules that prohibit rural counties from allowing development of affordable housing first, and then any type of commercial development, second. That is, rather than allowing us to build starter homes for families that are starting out, we instead create a financial scheme that requires those families to buy homes that are too expensive, with subsidized mortgages.

We can then add in the administrative and regulatory atmosphere that any business must deal with when attempting to conduct business in Oregon. Micro-managing pollutants, the excessive zeal of Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality is a group of environmental brown-shirts parading as green. In train, a collection of psycho-environmentalists whose financial well-being is assured by grants and gifts of this cryptically motivated agency.

But, our author is not able to find economists with a clear understanding of the current in situ reasons for our state's decline in employment. So, I checked on the author. Who is able to maintain his own wiki page. A Pulitzer Prize winner.

People wonder why newspapers like the Oregonian are victim of declining sales. It's reportage like this that underscores my reason for no longer spending my money on this periodical.

Several Sundays ago, I was at my club and came across a copy of the Oregonian. I read with interest an article on food preparation in a Lesser Developed Country. Of course it included a condemnation of those practises, since they--the reader was assured--were contributing to the current Climate Crisis. The lack of editorial function was astounding. Here was an article that was condeming the practise of using charcoal for cooking since it increased the amount of particulants in the atmosphere. While noted scientists have pointed out that it is in fact these particulants that have helped to ameliorate the increase in planetary warming in the face of their theoretical curse of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

The point is, any story can be manipulated into supporting whatever crack-pot theory one wishes to hold. As long as there is a lack of intellectual honesty. Or, perhaps, simple curiousity.

Do you need to be an economist to make sound judgements about your own wants and needs? Nopers. And you prove that every time you enter a supermarket and return home with the items you wanted. That's how economics works. You don't need a nanny standing over your shoulder approving what it is that you buy.

Yet. They're working on it.