SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When Christopher Nolan was promoting his previous film Interstellar, he made the casual observation that "Take a field like economics for example. [Unlike physics] you have real material things and it can't predict anything. It's always wrong." There is a lot more truth in that statement than most academic economists would like to admit.
[...] several famous Keynesian and neo-classical economists, including Paul Romer, [...] criticized the "Mathiness in the Theory of Economic Growth" and [...] Paul Krugman. In this instance, though, Krugman is mostly correct observing that "As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth."
[...] But more fundamentally, as Austrian economist Frank Shostak notes, "In the natural sciences, a laboratory experiment can isolate various elements and their movements. There is no equivalent in the discipline of economics. The employment of econometrics and econometric model-building is an attempt to produce a laboratory where controlled experiments can be conducted."
The result is that economic forecasts are usually just wrong."
"[Levinovitz] approvingly quotes one economist saying "The interest of the profession is in pursuing its analysis in a language that's inaccessible to laypeople and even some economists. What we've done is monopolise this kind of expertise.[...] that gives us power.""
[...] because economics models are mostly useless and cannot predict the future with any sort of certainty, then centrally directing an economy would be effectively like flying blind. The failure of economic models to pan out is simply more proof of the pretense of knowledge. And it's not more knowledge that we need, it's more humility. The humility to know that "wise" bureaucrats are not the best at directing a market "
Economists Are the New Astrologers
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:19PM (1 child)
- CFS's are not a market phenomenon. As an example an incentive was created for remitting a florocarbon, at a certain price, a factory in China found it could produce the CFS at a profit, and thus produced the CFC, to ship to the regulator, to get paid, for reducing cfc emmissions.
- The government has catch limits for fish, and you hold that this is the only solution, and indeed the reason that the species are not extinct. I hold very much that this has no evidence in support of it.
- The government requires the postal service deliver to people, even in very remote areas. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that this is a good thing. The taxpayer should not subsidise deliveries to very remote areas. The government should not prohibit others from providing postal services.
- The government imposes accessibility requirements. You seem to again mistaken in believing this is a good thing. Surely those who choose to supply accessibility should be rewarded with the custom of those who require it, or believe supplying such facilities is admirable. I find nothing admirable in the men with guns forcing people to do things, even if it is providing accessibility.
- Acid rain. This is a case where civil law has always been sufficient. Those who pollute should be civilly liable for the damage caused. That is all. Government cap and trade restrictions, have merely moved the pollution to other locations.
You accuse the Austrian schools of failing to account for the Tragedy of the commons, and only concerning itself with the two parties to the transaction. You will however find that this violates the non-aggression principle, which violates ethical behaviour within the Austrian School.
That there are third parties (externalities) to the parties involved in the transaction is not a failure of the Austrian School. It is merely a fact. A fact that you seem to believe requires men with guns to enforce.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:47PM
Please explain how anyone is going to successfully sue and enforce a judgement against a polluter without "men with guns".
Contracts rest on the ability of either side to enforce them. This often requires assistance from the Government.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory