Comments on: The War of the Economists http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ideology, policy and bipartisanship « The Captured Perspective http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20250 Ideology, policy and bipartisanship « The Captured Perspective Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:44:17 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20250 [...] to come to some type of coherent foundation that we can all agree on, and argue from. Here, Will Wilkinson has some interesting things to say about disagreements among economists (and by extension, social [...] [...] to come to some type of coherent foundation that we can all agree on, and argue from. Here, Will Wilkinson has some interesting things to say about disagreements among economists (and by extension, social [...]

]]> By: natesullivan.com › we’ll get back to you on this http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20249 natesullivan.com › we’ll get back to you on this Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:18:35 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20249 [...] idea than, say, me, but they’re not really sure. Well, via The American Scene, here’s that exact theory being posited in response to all this debate over the stimulus bill.  When I see Delong more or less [...] [...] idea than, say, me, but they’re not really sure. Well, via The American Scene, here’s that exact theory being posited in response to all this debate over the stimulus bill.  When I see Delong more or less [...]

]]> By: Namazu http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20251 Namazu Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:11:42 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20251 Economists aren't professionals in the same sense as plumbers, surgeons, or airline pilots. Their level of professional achievement is uncorrelated to their ability to bring to bear what they've learned in their sub-specialties on the issues of the day, there is no yardstick for basic competence, and the consequences for being wrong are minor. Taleb's takedown of the so-called "Nobel Prize" in economics covers this nicely. However, to your plaint, I'd suggest casting your net a little wider than perhaps you have already: a diverse group of non-academic bloggers (some of mysterious affiliation) have been smarter, right-er, and earlier on our current crisis. Like everyone, they have ideologies, but they spend less time than the "professional" economists defending tiny pieces of intellectual turf. I recommend Mish Shedlock at Global Economic Analysis , "Jesse" at Crossroads Cafe, and "Cassandra" (does Tokyo) for starters. Economists aren't professionals in the same sense as plumbers, surgeons, or airline pilots. Their level of professional achievement is uncorrelated to their ability to bring to bear what they've learned in their sub-specialties on the issues of the day, there is no yardstick for basic competence, and the consequences for being wrong are minor. Taleb's takedown of the so-called “Nobel Prize” in economics covers this nicely. However, to your plaint, I'd suggest casting your net a little wider than perhaps you have already: a diverse group of non-academic bloggers (some of mysterious affiliation) have been smarter, right-er, and earlier on our current crisis. Like everyone, they have ideologies, but they spend less time than the “professional” economists defending tiny pieces of intellectual turf. I recommend Mish Shedlock at Global Economic Analysis , “Jesse” at Crossroads Cafe, and “Cassandra” (does Tokyo) for starters.

]]> By: PQuincy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20252 PQuincy Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:26:45 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20252 Mr. Denmore is mostly right: economics, for fairly evident epistemological reasons, faces major problems in its claim to be a hypothesis-falsifying objective enterprise, aka 'science', though it certainly is and will remain a science in the sense of being a disciplined and useful pursuit of shared knowledge.<br><br>Thus, economists who argue as if their work were scientific in the rigorous sense naturally end up in tedious debates based on incommensurable ontologies, exactly what the natural sciences (through great effort) have managed to avoid. <br><br>In contrast, those economists who recognize that they can provide a rational and empirically-based disciplinary perspective on important events -- not 'objective science', but, like history or sociology, a set of plausible and coherent explanations -- can and should continue commenting on public policy related to their discipline. And, like all other contributions to political debate that rest on thoughtful, empirical, but epistemologically contingent assumptions, their contributions must be weighed in light of their assumptions and other understandings, aka 'ideology', and in light of their potential consequences in our current predicament. Mr. Denmore is mostly right: economics, for fairly evident epistemological reasons, faces major problems in its claim to be a hypothesis-falsifying objective enterprise, aka 'science', though it certainly is and will remain a science in the sense of being a disciplined and useful pursuit of shared knowledge.

Thus, economists who argue as if their work were scientific in the rigorous sense naturally end up in tedious debates based on incommensurable ontologies, exactly what the natural sciences (through great effort) have managed to avoid.

In contrast, those economists who recognize that they can provide a rational and empirically-based disciplinary perspective on important events — not 'objective science', but, like history or sociology, a set of plausible and coherent explanations — can and should continue commenting on public policy related to their discipline. And, like all other contributions to political debate that rest on thoughtful, empirical, but epistemologically contingent assumptions, their contributions must be weighed in light of their assumptions and other understandings, aka 'ideology', and in light of their potential consequences in our current predicament.

]]> By: Namazu http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20248 Namazu Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:11:42 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20248 Economists aren't professionals in the same sense as plumbers, surgeons, or airline pilots. Their level of professional achievement is uncorrelated to their ability to bring to bear what they've learned in their sub-specialties on the issues of the day, there is no yardstick for basic competence, and the consequences for being wrong are minor. Taleb's takedown of the so-called "Nobel Prize" in economics covers this nicely. However, to your plaint, I'd suggest casting your net a little wider than perhaps you have already: a diverse group of non-academic bloggers (some of mysterious affiliation) have been smarter, right-er, and earlier on our current crisis. Like everyone, they have ideologies, but they spend less time than the "professional" economists defending tiny pieces of intellectual turf. I recommend Mish Shedlock at Global Economic Analysis , "Jesse" at Crossroads Cafe, and "Cassandra" (does Tokyo) for starters. Economists aren't professionals in the same sense as plumbers, surgeons, or airline pilots. Their level of professional achievement is uncorrelated to their ability to bring to bear what they've learned in their sub-specialties on the issues of the day, there is no yardstick for basic competence, and the consequences for being wrong are minor. Taleb's takedown of the so-called “Nobel Prize” in economics covers this nicely. However, to your plaint, I'd suggest casting your net a little wider than perhaps you have already: a diverse group of non-academic bloggers (some of mysterious affiliation) have been smarter, right-er, and earlier on our current crisis. Like everyone, they have ideologies, but they spend less time than the “professional” economists defending tiny pieces of intellectual turf. I recommend Mish Shedlock at Global Economic Analysis , “Jesse” at Crossroads Cafe, and “Cassandra” (does Tokyo) for starters.

]]> By: Angry Bear Water Lesson: Macroeconomics of Fresh Water (Right) and Salt Water (Left) (AngryBear) - LeakBird http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20246 Angry Bear Water Lesson: Macroeconomics of Fresh Water (Right) and Salt Water (Left) (AngryBear) - LeakBird Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:36:30 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20246 [...] Works, Water Crisis, Water Industry, Water Management (Jan. 27, 2009, Angry Bear) Will Wilkinson asks what’s with the economics profession. A bit more on the public relations quandary the economics [...] [...] Works, Water Crisis, Water Industry, Water Management (Jan. 27, 2009, Angry Bear) Will Wilkinson asks what’s with the economics profession. A bit more on the public relations quandary the economics [...]

]]> By: PQuincy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20247 PQuincy Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:26:45 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20247 Mr. Denmore is mostly right: economics, for fairly evident epistemological reasons, faces major problems in its claim to be a hypothesis-falsifying objective enterprise, aka 'science', though it certainly is and will remain a science in the sense of being a disciplined and useful pursuit of shared knowledge.<br><br>Thus, economists who argue as if their work were scientific in the rigorous sense naturally end up in tedious debates based on incommensurable ontologies, exactly what the natural sciences (through great effort) have managed to avoid. <br><br>In contrast, those economists who recognize that they can provide a rational and empirically-based disciplinary perspective on important events -- not 'objective science', but, like history or sociology, a set of plausible and coherent explanations -- can and should continue commenting on public policy related to their discipline. And, like all other contributions to political debate that rest on thoughtful, empirical, but epistemologically contingent assumptions, their contributions must be weighed in light of their assumptions and other understandings, aka 'ideology', and in light of their potential consequences in our current predicament. Mr. Denmore is mostly right: economics, for fairly evident epistemological reasons, faces major problems in its claim to be a hypothesis-falsifying objective enterprise, aka 'science', though it certainly is and will remain a science in the sense of being a disciplined and useful pursuit of shared knowledge.

Thus, economists who argue as if their work were scientific in the rigorous sense naturally end up in tedious debates based on incommensurable ontologies, exactly what the natural sciences (through great effort) have managed to avoid.

In contrast, those economists who recognize that they can provide a rational and empirically-based disciplinary perspective on important events — not 'objective science', but, like history or sociology, a set of plausible and coherent explanations — can and should continue commenting on public policy related to their discipline. And, like all other contributions to political debate that rest on thoughtful, empirical, but epistemologically contingent assumptions, their contributions must be weighed in light of their assumptions and other understandings, aka 'ideology', and in light of their potential consequences in our current predicament.

]]> By: Mr Denmore http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20245 Mr Denmore Wed, 28 Jan 2009 03:19:35 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20245 The problem is economics is not, and never was, a "science" in the generally understood meaning of the term. Economics intersects too much with politics to ever be considered purely scientific. The overlap with politics comes from the fact that people (and markets and economies) do not always behave as classical economic theory would suggest. There are no cast iron laws, only probabilities and moral choices. The libertarians' favourite economist, Adam Smith, actually said all this in his 'other' great work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments':<br><br>"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." The problem is economics is not, and never was, a “science” in the generally understood meaning of the term. Economics intersects too much with politics to ever be considered purely scientific. The overlap with politics comes from the fact that people (and markets and economies) do not always behave as classical economic theory would suggest. There are no cast iron laws, only probabilities and moral choices. The libertarians' favourite economist, Adam Smith, actually said all this in his 'other' great work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments':

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

]]> By: Gatehawk http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20244 Gatehawk Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:11:31 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20244 Read Jarvis, “The gift in theory”, Dionysius 17 (December 1999), 201-222. Read Jarvis, “The gift in theory”, Dionysius 17 (December 1999), 201-222.

]]> By: Vangel http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/01/24/the-war-of-the-economists/#comment-20243 Vangel Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:29:37 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2580#comment-20243 "Sadly, there is no one better to listen to."<br><br>You are totally wrong on this issue. While most of the mainstream economists are idiots who failed to understand the implications of the actions that were being taken by central banks and governments, economists from the Austrian School got it right yet again and predicted what had to happen. These economists do not get much attention because they do not advocate central planning and meddling in the economy. As such, they do not get funded by governments or special interests looking for handouts so few people get to hear what they have to say. “Sadly, there is no one better to listen to.”

You are totally wrong on this issue. While most of the mainstream economists are idiots who failed to understand the implications of the actions that were being taken by central banks and governments, economists from the Austrian School got it right yet again and predicted what had to happen. These economists do not get much attention because they do not advocate central planning and meddling in the economy. As such, they do not get funded by governments or special interests looking for handouts so few people get to hear what they have to say.

]]>