Well, if those who “talk about the stock market on CNBC” formed your opinion of economists, then we have pretty much identified the source of the error

You ask if there is a substantial difference of viewpoints between the CNBC-WSJ types and mainstream economic profession and what is that difference. The first question is easy: the answer is “yes, there is”. The second is more complex and I do not have a full answer, but here are my 2c’s worth (quite in line with what Sandy’s wrote, I think).

First, economics has pretty few hard-and-fast general results and for any big, sound-bite-worth problem, you are likely to find economists who honestly disagree and economists who take one position because of some ideological and cognitive biases: guess who’s going to be invited to talk in very business-friendly media?

Second, economists on public media often seem unable to say “I don’t know” even when it is clear that there is no overwhelming consensus in the profession or simply when the question is not one they have personally researched very extensively (this is a problem with experts in other disciplines, too; but economics is such a broad field that the problem is amplified). In these cases, the economist’s ideological preferences tend to supply the answers – and the question in the previous paragraph applies again.

Now, having said all this, it is true that economists tend to have a generalized prior belief in the effectiveness of market solution that is larger than that in the average population. That is probably not an example of bias, but an example of better professional judgment. And it has nothing to do with a preferential concern for the rich vs. the poor: it has to do with beliefs about the most efficient means of reaching some ends (including the end of redistributing wealth from reach to poor, if that is what the polity wants).

Moreover, such market-biased prior does not necessarily survives the economic analysis: the professional consensus is that many areas of social life would be better off with some enlightened form of government intervention than with libertarian laissez-faire (for example, there are not many people asking to repeal the antitrust laws!). Even on subjects like MW or school vouchers, there is quite a lot of work being done that goes beyond the (broadly correct) first-order approximation that MW does have a (possibly small) negative effect on employment and vouchers put pressure on underperforming schools.

Finally, you ask whether research work in economics would be understandable by an amateur. Well, an amateur is unlikely to enjoy Econometrica, but then there is not much of immediate policy relevance there anyway. If you want to sample mainstream economics, try browsing the Journal of Economic Perspectives and maybe the Journal of Economic Literature. And, for an example of serious-but-easy-to-read applied policy work by a top-notch theorist, do have a look at Peter Diamond’s “Social Security Reform” (Oxford University Press).

Skepticism is key, as with anything. In his book -The Black Swan, Taleb gives examples of economists who can’t make the transition between real life and theoretical ideas. They make simple mistakes of bias and probability that you wouldn’t expect from them. So, just because someone does great theoretical work doesn’t mean you wont see them on TV saying something ridiculous.

In regard to your earlier question (well, I’m going to take the foolishly-offered platforrm to expand on it, but I should produce an answer):
the thing that worries me most about Peak Oil is not the loss of the most easily transported, calorific fuel we ever thought of we have other fuels, if less calorific and/or transportable (hell, we burn natural gas at the well); there are mitigation strategies, even if they’re not particularly well implemented right now.
My big worry is the loss of our source of large amounts of easily-manipulated hydrocarbons. So much of our current manufacturing is massively dependent on plastics. So little of our plastics are not made from oil.
So, yeah; Peak Oil may mean serious agricultural damage (fertilizer price is heading for the roof, just for a start) and all sorts of other fun, but ultimately, in pure energy terms it’s survivable. The famously car-ridden LA may revert to the original city plan for all those roads, and buy buses. The US might drop its tariff on Brazilian ethanol (which is not nearly such a bad idea as grain ethanol). We might start using sail power again (land yachts are fun), or grow vegetables in windowboxes. High-rise apartments could be mandated, to save on heating costs (building underground would probably be even more effective, with the side benefit of the suburbs and “local farming,” or some other land use – even if just as really good scenery – being able to overlap to some degree). But loss of plastics as a material would not be pretty.

We have only pushed the problem (such as it is) into segmentation, not solved or dismissed it. BTW I should read more research work, but fear I wouldn’t really get the point (would an amateur?)

You write

“most economists instinctively think about the subject in ways that favor the wealthy and not the common good”

What economists are you talking about? I am an economist, I know many economists and that picture does not look even remotely right (e.g., look at the bio of Duncan Foley, one of the signatories of the anti-gas-tax-holiday website).

Can you provide some evidence, examples? (please consider only real economists, those who write research articles, not those who write only op-ed pieces or talk about the stock market on CNBC)

As to Krugman, it seems he has more or less stopped being an economist (a very well respected one, winner of the prestigious J.B. Clark Medal in 1991) and is now mainly a political commentator – a very pro-Clinton one, and even he thinks the gas-tax-holiday is a bad idea.

Here is a link to an entertaining article where India takes a shot at fat americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/business/worldbusiness/14food.html?em&ex=1210996800&en=3b3467c609f22a06&ei=5087

BTW, Almighty Bob, PorkBellyFutures, (or anyone), what are your thoughts about getting through the Peak Oil era? Is the situation as dire as simple consideration of likely “demand” (shall we say, desired demand?) continuing to outstrip supply as population and cars increase in India and China? I’d like to think we can deal with this, but our leaders will have to provide real leadership. The BAU model of governance will not get us through.

By the way, if it were true that companies charge what consumers will pay, then prices would not have been lower five or ten years ago. The fact that they were refutes the quoted assertion.

The price of something is the point at which the supply and demand graphs cross (slightly modified by some sociology and psychology). For a fixed supply, each company will charge what they think people will pay. If the profit margin is high, any company may get undercut by a competitor looking to steal their customers – collapsing the equilibrium and triggering a price war, resulting in equilibrium at a lower price point.
Demand is higher now, so the market can bear a higher price.

The supply of petroleum during the summer months is essentially fixed, and the oil companies will charge what traffic will bear. If taxes are lower, they will simply charge the same amount and pocket the difference.

By the way, if it were true that companies charge what consumers will pay, then prices would not have been lower five or ten years ago. The fact that they were refutes the quoted assertion.