42 ms·

Whenever I see arguments like this it makes me wonder if the author just doesn't like the laws of economics as we understand them and then proceeds to suggest t

Whenever I see arguments like this it makes me wonder if the author just doesn't like the laws of economics as we understand them and then proceeds to suggest that we should disregard them because they're inconvenient. For now there is a lot of scarcity and until that changes we're bound to our fate that we have to work hard to build a future for ourselves, our families, and our community. We've tried printing a lot of money to build prosperity to give us a short cut and now we're paying the price for that. We've also tried centralized planning on a massive scale (e.g. in the Soviet Union) and that didn't end well either. It seems like we need to get over the fact that we all need to work hard. The notion that the market isn't reflecting our values is silly it seems to be the only reflection of our values. The title of this article is correct in that economics is not a science on the level of physics or chemistry but it's not exactly something you can just disregard entirely either.

Semiapies 17y ago
"and then proceeds to suggest that we should disregard them because they're inconvenient" That's about the size of it. I usually see it raised in a political context, where someone doesn't like the implication that some desired program isn't budgetary feasible or has any conceivable economic drawbacks. It's a sort of foot-stamping rejection of problems that reminds me a lot of global-warming denialism.
- billswift 17y ago
  I started to up vote you until I got to your stupidity about global warming. I posted the following as part of a comment on Overcoming Bias after a similar silly insertion of global warming bull: As for the global warming example, everyone, especially those interested in OB or LW, should read The Deniers (http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250285537&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-...). The author still believes in agw even after assembling all the evidence in the book. Every one of the experts still accepts global warming, they apparently believe that only the information they are personally and professionally acquainted with was misused by the zealots and everything else was accurately reported by the media.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Hmm. Despite my using a pejorative phrase for the people who don't accept global warming and calling it a "foot-stamping rejection of problems", you appear to think I am a global warming denialist. I don't think the "stupidity" here is mine, and I am gratified to avoid your up-vote.
presidentender 17y ago
While economics can't be disregarded, modern Keynsian economics bears as much resemblance to science as it does to religion. Its "Laws" are not laws in the sense that the Laws of Thermodynamics are laws, and the scientific method is not employed in developing them, because the scientific method is ill-suited to the subject. The issue here is one of vocabulary, but it's an important issue nonetheless. Perhaps if we stop treating calling non-sciences "sciences," the credibility of real science will be improved, and the formerly unassailable opinions of economists will come under more scrutiny. I think that would be a good thing.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  That's true, but Keynesians are just one school of thought. Austrians try to derive their understanding from pure logic; this isn't such a religion, but still isn't directly susceptible to the scientific method. On the other hand, the Chicago school is certainly empirical, and to this extent, theories can (frequently) be investigated for proof or disproof.
  - presidentender 17y ago
    I almost agree with you, but assert that "frequently" isn't good enough; the Chicago school's attempt to rely on empirical evidence is necessarily incomplete, just due to the sheer volume of data. That said, I tend to subscribe to the Austrian school, which I believe we can agree does not qualify as a science.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      Actually, I agree with your disagreement :) It's simply not possible for Chicagoans (is that the word?) to test all their ideas. There are plenty of theories for which no real-world data exists, so they must remain as speculation for now. And I'm extremely sympathetic to the Austrian ideas. I love Mises' Human Action (at least the parts of it I've been able to get through so far). At the same time, I must acknowledge that the deeper one goes into such reasoning, the greater the chance for failing to notice that you made an assumption, one that may be wrong. So there's a necessity to get back to a touchstone of the real world occasionally. It may not seem so, but it's easy for pure logic to go astray. Mathematicians pride themselves on logical rigor, but the fact is that many modern-day mathematical proofs are so complex that no one is really sure that they're correct. And I'm dismayed that the Keynesians have been crowing about multipliers of late, when all of our experience during the 70s has shown us fundamental flaws in the Keynesian philosophy (yes, you can easily have high inflation and high employment at the same time!).

Semiapies 17y ago

"and then proceeds to suggest that we should disregard them because they're inconvenient" That's about the size of it. I usually see it raised in a political context, where someone doesn't like the implication that some desired program isn't budgetary feasible or has any conceivable economic drawbacks. It's a sort of foot-stamping rejection of problems that reminds me a lot of global-warming denialism.

billswift 17y ago
I started to up vote you until I got to your stupidity about global warming. I posted the following as part of a comment on Overcoming Bias after a similar silly insertion of global warming bull: As for the global warming example, everyone, especially those interested in OB or LW, should read The Deniers (http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250285537&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-...). The author still believes in agw even after assembling all the evidence in the book. Every one of the experts still accepts global warming, they apparently believe that only the information they are personally and professionally acquainted with was misused by the zealots and everything else was accurately reported by the media.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Hmm. Despite my using a pejorative phrase for the people who don't accept global warming and calling it a "foot-stamping rejection of problems", you appear to think I am a global warming denialist. I don't think the "stupidity" here is mine, and I am gratified to avoid your up-vote.

presidentender 17y ago

While economics can't be disregarded, modern Keynsian economics bears as much resemblance to science as it does to religion. Its "Laws" are not laws in the sense that the Laws of Thermodynamics are laws, and the scientific method is not employed in developing them, because the scientific method is ill-suited to the subject. The issue here is one of vocabulary, but it's an important issue nonetheless. Perhaps if we stop treating calling non-sciences "sciences," the credibility of real science will be improved, and the formerly unassailable opinions of economists will come under more scrutiny. I think that would be a good thing.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
That's true, but Keynesians are just one school of thought. Austrians try to derive their understanding from pure logic; this isn't such a religion, but still isn't directly susceptible to the scientific method. On the other hand, the Chicago school is certainly empirical, and to this extent, theories can (frequently) be investigated for proof or disproof.
- presidentender 17y ago
  I almost agree with you, but assert that "frequently" isn't good enough; the Chicago school's attempt to rely on empirical evidence is necessarily incomplete, just due to the sheer volume of data. That said, I tend to subscribe to the Austrian school, which I believe we can agree does not qualify as a science.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    Actually, I agree with your disagreement :) It's simply not possible for Chicagoans (is that the word?) to test all their ideas. There are plenty of theories for which no real-world data exists, so they must remain as speculation for now. And I'm extremely sympathetic to the Austrian ideas. I love Mises' Human Action (at least the parts of it I've been able to get through so far). At the same time, I must acknowledge that the deeper one goes into such reasoning, the greater the chance for failing to notice that you made an assumption, one that may be wrong. So there's a necessity to get back to a touchstone of the real world occasionally. It may not seem so, but it's easy for pure logic to go astray. Mathematicians pride themselves on logical rigor, but the fact is that many modern-day mathematical proofs are so complex that no one is really sure that they're correct. And I'm dismayed that the Keynesians have been crowing about multipliers of late, when all of our experience during the 70s has shown us fundamental flaws in the Keynesian philosophy (yes, you can easily have high inflation and high employment at the same time!).