As I get older, I encounter more and more new phrases that annoy me:
1. Universities need “safe spaces”? I’d say universities are safe spaces.
2. Read the room? No, the room needs to read me.
3. Cultural appropriation? By all means! Life would hardly be worth living without cultural appropriation.
4. Stay in your lane? Why would I want to do that?
Here’s The Economist, in a very revealing article on Chinese authoritarianism:
The initial affront that led to the tech crackdown was Jack Ma’s comparison, at a public event in October, of Chinese state lenders to pawn shops. A month later China’s stockmarket regulator suspended the $37bn initial public offering of Ant, which would have been the world’s biggest ever, in Hong Kong and Shanghai. Since then the authorities have forced Ant to become a financial holding company, undermining its lucrative, asset-light business model of matching consumers with lenders.
The message, says a broker in Hong Kong, is that tech leaders should “stay in their own lane, focus on their core businesses and avoid commenting on politics or economics”. It has been heard loud and clear. Pony Ma’s parliamentary performance, in which he called for strict regulation of areas that he has invested in, from e-commerce to ride-hailing, has been seen as a signal to the Chinese government that he will not get out of line.
Jack Ma is the founder of Alibaba, one of China’s two biggest tech giants. Pony Ma is the CEO of Tencent, the other big Chinese tech giant. The Economist says that Pony Ma was supposed to stay in his lane. What does that mean? They suggest it means that he should “avoid commenting on politics or economics”. So what does Pony Ma do? He goes out and starts advocating more government regulation in his own industry, which is pretty much the textbook definition of commenting on politics and economics. And the Economist suggests that as a result he was seen as being a good soldier, willing to stay in his lane.
Almost no one honestly wants other people to stay in their lane. They want other people to agree with them on policy issues. As long as you do that, no one will accuse you of not staying in your lane. On the other hand, if you disagree with someone’s views, they’ll tell you to stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
Here’s Bob Dylan:
An’ though the rules of the road have been lodged
It’s only people’s games that you got to dodge
And it’s alright, Ma, I can make it
READER COMMENTS
Brian
May 22 2021 at 11:44pm
Speaking of annoying phrases, consider that some people are starting their replies to a question with “No, yeah…” or “Yeah, no…”. That one takes the cake as far as I’m concerned.
Phil H
May 23 2021 at 10:35am
I’m a really bad offender when it comes to that phrase. I have a defense, though – two, in fact. (1) There are a whole bunch of issues on which I hold contradictory views, so I simultaneously think both yes and no; (2) (much more commonly) I want to signal first that I understand and respect the other point of view, which my interlocutor might hold, before giving my view.
So, yeah, no I’m not sure it’s as bad as you say. But yeah, I can easily appreciate why it could be annoying.
More on-topic: Scott’s right that intellectual regulation is almost always dishonest/self-serving. And the only hedge against it is institutions. If you really care what the latest research suggests, you have to go and read the journals; if you care what accountants think, you have to go and see what their industrial organization says about the topic; etc.
Henri Hein
May 23 2021 at 12:39pm
That’s interesting. I actually like it. One reason is that it reminds me of the classic: “Yes, we have no bananas.” So there is a humor or playfulness to it. There is also sometimes the ambiguous reading Phil H mentioned, and I have a strange fascination with ambiguity. Some writers seem to use it in a different sense, where the first “Yes” is short for “Yeah, listen,” which in American colloquialism can just be a general attention grabber, with “yeah” not connoting affirmation of anything. So short-hand for “Yeah, listen. There is no way.” That’s how I normally use it.
Now that I know it brings you displeasure, I will try to remember not to use it myself.
mbka
May 25 2021 at 12:28am
As seen in Australia: “We are now open later”. Took me a few seconds to parse that.
David S
May 23 2021 at 3:24am
I wonder if Scott considered this post for the Bad Blog, but decided that it belonged here for intellectual consistency.
What if the Internet had stayed in its lane as a military toy and communication network for physicists?
Scott Sumner
May 23 2021 at 2:08pm
I didn’t think it was quite bad enough for my Bad Blog.
David S
May 25 2021 at 6:15am
I also found it reassuring that you started a recent post with the disclaimer “I’m no expert on digital currencies….” That’s a lot more honest than the breathless people who fill up the Internet with claims that crypto shall open the gates to Paradise.
Beware of False Profits.
Rajat
May 23 2021 at 7:01am
Being a corporate employee or public servant in Australia is not a lot different. Both are permitted to voice or ‘like’ progressive opinions on platforms such as LinkedIn. If one is a public servant, it is fine to be active on social media if one supports government policy and/or progressive values in general, but criticising either is risky. Criticising policy is risky even when ostensibly anonymous: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-07/high-court-free-speech-public-service–banerji-decision/11377990
Scott Sumner
May 23 2021 at 12:05pm
As I recall, the current government in Australia is conservative. In that case, does an Australian government employee get in more trouble espousing conservative values or left wing values?
Rajat
May 23 2021 at 4:14pm
It’s true the current government is conservative, but the employee’s views would have put her well to the left of both mainstream parties. I think the case arose because progressives in general feel less constrained in voicing their opinions in public (including those work work in government departments) than conservatives, who tend to self-censor much more. A typical example is that it is considered perfectly appropriate to publicly voice the opinion that there should be more women in senior leadership positions because women’s skills and value have been under-recognised. But voicing the opinion that appointing more women is not necessary or that perhaps certain senior people have been appointed in large part because they are women could lead to problems.
Monte
May 23 2021 at 7:13pm
Criticising policy is risky even when ostensibly anonymous.
I agree with the court finding in favor of employers who choose to terminate employees that go public with criticisms of dept policy. Employees that do are essentially players who are “throwing the game.”
With respect to competing interests, those able to endure criticism without resentment or retaliation is the final proof of greatness (to paraphrase Elbert Hubbard). That being said, I’m not aware of any governing body that aspires to be great in the face of criticism, rather than controlling or punitive. In that case, politics (a.k.a. the art of compromise) matters.
Juan Manuel Perez Porrua Perez
May 23 2021 at 2:38pm
“Staying in one’s lane” would, I think, prevent a lot of embarrassment, for, say, lawyers who make inaccurate and overly optimistic forecasts of deaths by COVID-19 — and it would save the public, maybe, at least a few thousand unnecessary deaths when officials take them seriously.
Jon Murphy
May 23 2021 at 3:25pm
Check out my latest paper with Roger Koppl, Abigail Devereaux, and Nathan Goodman on why the “staying in your own lane” mindset made the pandemic worse.
Scott Sumner
May 23 2021 at 7:47pm
I got out of my lane on March 1, 2020, when I questioned expert opinion that people should not wear masks. And I’m glad I did.
Phil H
May 23 2021 at 10:00pm
You’re right there, but the risk is confirmation bias. Which is why I would still lean towards listening to the institutions. My ideal model – and I’m not sure if it’s possible – is vigorous public debate combined with rigorous, institutionalized policy. An example would be vaccinations: there’s no legitimate way to stomp out antivax propaganda; but policy should firmly ignore it in favour of the institutional view.
Of course, like everyone here, I’ve been shocked by the failures of the institutions during Covid. But I couldn’t support a shift to “set health policy based on what the smart people at Econlib think,” because as a policy, that would bring worse outcomes overall. To put it another way: The fact that Model A failed here doesn’t mean that Model B is better.
robc
May 24 2021 at 6:44am
Institutional policy is a prime example of not staying in your lane.
Policy should be at the individual or, at largest, household level. My household is my lane, anyone veering into it is leaving their lane.
Institutions should make suggestions, that is all.
Scott Sumner
May 24 2021 at 12:20pm
You said:
“But I couldn’t support a shift to “set health policy based on what the smart people at Econlib think,” because as a policy, that would bring worse outcomes overall.”
Policy should be determined by elected officials and their representatives. Obviously.
I would hope that people like Alex Tabarrok have had an impact on shaping expert opinion, giving the number of times that he’s been right and the establishment has been wrong.
Ultimately, we need to hope that the experts are rational, and listen to reasonable arguments regardless of who is making them.
Juan Manuel Perez Porrua Perez
May 24 2021 at 4:58pm
Ma has a vested interest in steering economic policy in a certain direction — his arguments whatever they are cannot simply be taken at face value. He has something to gain besides the argument.
What people like Ma do sometimes is to directly or indirectly pay someone to take their position in a public debate — I’d say that someone who “stays in their lane” of a field of research is less susceptible to this since they would know that sometimes a position is simply wrong. But, people who “invade other people’s lanes”, like this lawyer I alluded to, would be susceptible to this kind of thing, since their non-experties provides a lot of hedges to hide behind and at the same time lend their aura of expertise to a position that is motivated by someone else’s personal gain.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
May 23 2021 at 3:30pm
On the other hand, asking policy makers to stay in their lane(s) makes sense. They can only optimize (at most) as many objectives as they have instruments. If they add objectives, (e. g. central banks striving for financial stability instead of sticking to employment and prices, or (worse) adding income distribution, climate change, etc., can only undermine achievement of their core objectives.
Scott Sumner
May 24 2021 at 12:21pm
There’s a difference between bad opinions and bad policy.
Michael Rulle
May 24 2021 at 8:57am
I think the recent use of “stay in your lane”—or not——began during Dem primary—-as perception was each candidate had a target audience. However it began, it is now just an all purpose cliche by lazy writers. I agree with Scott, this essay is not bad enough for bad blog—-as it has no typical troll features. I think writers who read this will use the phrase less. Maybe.
Comments are closed.