You're right of course. But economics isn't a science, like (say) psychology or linguistics. So predictions, schmedictions.
-
-
-
The problem is that practitioners of economics are treated like scientists, despite the lack of empiricism & falsifiability of their opinions. They are given Nobel prizes and social prestige instead of being ridiculed like the astrologers they are

-
Economics in general is a sham no matter if you are right wing or left wing. It’s a bunch of people taking stabs in the dark trying to make sense of a complex system that is the economy. All economists have failed predictions. Their assumptions of rationality are silly
-
Exception: the Austrians, as far as acknowledging complexity "However one twists things, one will never succeed in formulating the notion of 'irrational' action whose 'irrationality' is not founded upon an arbitrary judgment of value." L. Von Mises
-
The Austrians are loons. Where they are nuanced in some areas they also commit egregious errors both on human nature and on the sanctity and effectiveness of the free market as some panacea. They are too idealistic yet they dress themselves as objective observers.
-
That's a fair attack, but I don't hear anyone claiming to hold the keys to a utopia, though they may come across that way at times.
-
My point is, and I think you'll agree, they are the ones making the least claims about how to best orchestrate some kind of perfect system, to their credit.
-
I don’t think that’s correct. During my economics degree, I read plenty of Austrian theorists (believe it or not higher level Econ classes give you many perspectives yet conservatives think that’s not the case) and they go off the rails with how benevolent and perfect the FM is
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
You can add Paul Krugman to the list.
-
Steiglitz was his idol, so that makes perfect sense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's unfortunte that you, as a scientist, are choosing to support ideologial turf wars rather than the search for evidence and insights.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The "government failures" are references to public choice theory, which you have previously insinuated is ideologically motivated. It's why many are skeptical of regulation. Maybe something instead to seriously consider?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Reminds me how a psychologist managed to win a Nobel Prize in economics. I'm referring to Daniel Kahneman, author of 'Thinking, Fast and Slow.
-
Notably, he did so by assaulting the "rational actors" assumption at the foundation of most economic theories! I'm really glad we live in a world with scientists like Dr. K.
-
Assaulting? What’s with the allusion to combat—-are the sciences, academia, civil discourse a bit too dry for you or are you an avid gamer? I wonder if Hanlon’s Razor has anything to do with this trend.
-
Unless you're just being silly and I didn't pick up on it, in which case just chalk it up to the internet.
-
I’m wondering if you’re referring to flaming and trolling so prevalent online.
-
I just meant how hard it is to detect any amount of sarcasm. If you were jokingly asking if I said "assault on the rational actor model" because science bored me without adding "video game" elements, it's (kind of) funny. If you meant it seriously, it's very odd and insulting.
-
| "...how hard it is to detect any amount of sarcasm. " Well, obviously not as hard as determining it's source. What do you find odd and insulting about speculating that gamer culture or online trolling may have influenced your allusion?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.