4 ms·
...and economists will tell you something completely different. His points are awful and rely on no empirical evidence.
by med555 16y ago
...and economists will tell you something completely different. His points are awful and rely on no empirical evidence.
- fabjan 16y agoThe difference being historians have facts to go by, and economists have dreams.
- med555 16y agoWait, what? Maybe the Austrian School goes by theory if that, but every other school of economics goes by facts -- including the Chicago School, Monetarists, Keynesians, New Classical, etc. Economists' whole basis for their arguments is through empirical data and mathematical facts. Saying economists just relies on dreams is absolutely absurd and shows complete ignorance of the field.
- robak 16y agoOh really? What about latest Bernanke dream that you can solve problem of too much debt by getting more into debt? Isn't he dreaming?
- achompas 16y agoImplying economists use anything but data in developing macroeconomic forecasts is just absurd. Give it a rest.
- mattdeboard 16y agoI think you meant that bankers have dreams. They are the ones who invented the CDOs and other financial abstractions.
- robak 16y agoEconomists who do tell that too much finance ALWAYS led to social and economic collapse: Jensen, Faber, Rogers, Schiff... and read some history too before you accuse someone of not relying on empirical evidence. FIRE - Finance, Insurance, Real-Estate Economy - based on fake (paper) money, fake (virtual) instruments and debt won't hold for too much longer against a real economy based on production (China). Just wait for the day when Chinese tie their Yuan to gold/silver/oil/whatever. FIRE economies repeated through-out the History. They always failed. You can't build on paper foundation (read: on promises). You need to have REAL assets to back up your economy.