Don’t be swayed by “open” letters signed by well-known and well-respected scholars, experts, professors, and businessmen. In recent years, it has become usual to find in the popular media that a new group of apoplectic economists—substitute “doctors,” “scientists,” or “tech leaders” depending on the days—have written another open letter (signed by many of their own), rather than debate the merits of the argument.
In particular, it has become fashionable for large groups of economists to weigh in on pressing political debates by affixing their names to open letters. Earlier this month, hundreds of academics, including Nobel laureates, professors and graduate students, signed a letter defending Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and the principle of central bank independence. In April of this year more than 900 economists, including two Nobel Prize winners, issued an open letter denouncing President Donald Trump’s tariff policy. In the run up to the 2024 election, 23 Nobel Laureates in economics endorsed Kamala Harris’ economic policies over those of Trump. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 200 economists petitioned state governors to repeal anti-price gouging laws. These letters arrive with an air of authority, a united front of experts telling policymakers and the public what must be done to solve an untenable situation.
But we should be cautious of these pronouncements. Rather than treating them as gospel from the high priests of economic science, we should consider them warily, especially when the intended recipients are policymakers and politicians. The mere fact that hundreds of economists sign a letter does not make its assertions true. These open letters often function as a way to rally the troops politically, designed to influence decisions by the sheer weight of signatures, rather than the strength of a fully articulated argument.
Consider the recent letter regarding embattled Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Reserve independence. More than 500 economists condemned what they saw as threats to the Fed's independence, specifically citing Mr. Trump’s unproven claims about Governor Lisa Cook and his attempts to pressure the board on interest rates. The signatories argued that this independence is a "cornerstone of the system" and a "practical mechanism" to ensure monetary policy is not misused for "political gain at the expense of what’s best for the economy." On its surface, this is a noble defense of an established norm.
However, there are plenty of details the righteous mob simply does not appear to know. Their stated aim, to protect the integrity of the Fed and its decision making, may be pure, but if a Fed official has indeed bent the rules, it is just as important for the integrity of the system that this person be dismissed. In addition, while the Federal Reserve is considered independent today, it was not always so, and the road to independence has been long as politicians and others recognized that monetary policy needed to be free from politics. Today, it is hard to view the open letter about Lisa Cook without seeing political motives. Yes, independence is something to be defended, but endorsing a position without the facts is a form of mob justice. Shoot first and ask questions later. Why not provide a rigorous factual defense of Lisa Cook first, and also explain why not everyone agrees with the premise that Fed independence has been beneficial.
As economic educators, it disappoints us that such highly touted letters read like political position statements, instead of teachable moments for the uninformed. Economists can use the opportunity to explain the benefits, as well as the costs, of an independent central bank (or of tariffs, fiscal policy, or anti-gouging laws). Unfortunately, the hubristic tone and inflammatory headline may lead a lay person to believe that enough names at the end of a letter makes it fact. In reality, making a decision before the data has been collected, instead of allowing the investigation to proceed to an honest and fair conclusion, turns a noble cause into an exercise in theater and self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, we must approach these letters with healthy skepticism. When we see a long list of signatures from esteemed economists, we should not be intimidated into silence. Instead, we should ask for the full argument. We should demand a debate that acknowledges counterarguments and engages with the complexities of the real economy, which is often more nuanced than the narrow lens of economic theory would suggest. An economist's signature is an opinion, not a fact. And hundreds of them gathered in a letter is still not proof that the facts in the letter are correct.
