3 ms·

Any economic school of thought holds the answer to unknowns in other economic school of thoughts. The idea of following a specific school always struck be as de

Any economic school of thought holds the answer to unknowns in other economic school of thoughts. The idea of following a specific school always struck be as desparate. Any economics thinker worth their salt would never subscribe to just one school as they would know, at least today, that the world isnt predictable and there are fare more externalities to considder. This is also why i am a big opponent of policy guided by economists. They should serve as advisors not policy makers which is often the case today.

candiodari 8y ago
Instead of listening to people who know a little, we should listen to people who know nothing at all ? Surely I'm misunderstanding something here.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  The questions is what it is they know. You can be very wrong even though you are completely logical all the way down to your premise. All policy decisions have consequences sooner or later. Economist can neither predict, save or create the financial market. The things economists can say something useful about are different than what they are being used for. We should ask economists to calculate how public spending is going to be affected by various policies but the idea that they should be asked for advice on fundamental questions and thus what to implement as policy and not is simply a misguided idea to begin with. People make the economy not economists. Economists should be treated as custodians not psychics which is happening all to often today IMO.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    I wonder who you would suggest does better ? > Economist can neither predict, save or create the financial market. I would argue the problem is much more than the government selects economists based on what exactly they predict. For example: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/trump-picks-jerome-powell-to-succeed-yellen-as-fed-chair.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/trump-picks-jerome-powell-to... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/09/obama-janet-yellen-us-federal-reserve https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/09/obama-janet... In both cases the selection procedure gave up what these people did to get selected. Janet Yellen had strong academic credentials and a theory on how to prevent economic crashes, which clearly Obama was partial to. Of course we just pretend she wasn't Vice Chair in 2011, because that would be a definite fly in the soup. Powell seems to have been selected on a promise to take the market into account (ie. to try to preserve the inflated prices of stocks), which Trump seems to like, or at least he used to. The point is, both people were selected based on their opinions. To say that their actions represent economists is stupid. They represent Obama's and Trump's philosophies, not economists.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      You can't look at economics like that. Consequences of decisions made at one point sometimes take decades to manifest themselves. The point is that the idea that you can steer the economy through economical theory is what is wrong here.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        > The point is that the idea that you can steer the economy through economical theory is what is wrong here. I don't understand. That statement is so obvious I would call it a tautology. Of course you can.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        ... and think you can forsee the consequences.
        candiodari 8y ago
        You keep avoiding the question I ask about who CAN foresee the consequences ... Do you think the same about all the sciences btw ? I mean, there are plenty of systems much more complex than the economy. Climate, for example. Are they entirely unpredictable too ?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I don't avoid anything I am telling you that I don't believe economy is a science.

candiodari 8y ago

Instead of listening to people who know a little, we should listen to people who know nothing at all ? Surely I'm misunderstanding something here.

ThomPete 8y ago
The questions is what it is they know. You can be very wrong even though you are completely logical all the way down to your premise. All policy decisions have consequences sooner or later. Economist can neither predict, save or create the financial market. The things economists can say something useful about are different than what they are being used for. We should ask economists to calculate how public spending is going to be affected by various policies but the idea that they should be asked for advice on fundamental questions and thus what to implement as policy and not is simply a misguided idea to begin with. People make the economy not economists. Economists should be treated as custodians not psychics which is happening all to often today IMO.
- candiodari 8y ago
  I wonder who you would suggest does better ? > Economist can neither predict, save or create the financial market. I would argue the problem is much more than the government selects economists based on what exactly they predict. For example: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/trump-picks-jerome-powell-to-succeed-yellen-as-fed-chair.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/02/trump-picks-jerome-powell-to... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/09/obama-janet-yellen-us-federal-reserve https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/09/obama-janet... In both cases the selection procedure gave up what these people did to get selected. Janet Yellen had strong academic credentials and a theory on how to prevent economic crashes, which clearly Obama was partial to. Of course we just pretend she wasn't Vice Chair in 2011, because that would be a definite fly in the soup. Powell seems to have been selected on a promise to take the market into account (ie. to try to preserve the inflated prices of stocks), which Trump seems to like, or at least he used to. The point is, both people were selected based on their opinions. To say that their actions represent economists is stupid. They represent Obama's and Trump's philosophies, not economists.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    You can't look at economics like that. Consequences of decisions made at one point sometimes take decades to manifest themselves. The point is that the idea that you can steer the economy through economical theory is what is wrong here.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      > The point is that the idea that you can steer the economy through economical theory is what is wrong here. I don't understand. That statement is so obvious I would call it a tautology. Of course you can.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        ... and think you can forsee the consequences.
        candiodari 8y ago
        You keep avoiding the question I ask about who CAN foresee the consequences ... Do you think the same about all the sciences btw ? I mean, there are plenty of systems much more complex than the economy. Climate, for example. Are they entirely unpredictable too ?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I don't avoid anything I am telling you that I don't believe economy is a science.