Psuedo -scientist claims own discipline is psuedo-science, then purports that the best psuedo scientist are the ones finding the deficiencies of their psuedo science.
“Because economics both poses as a hard science and fails to generate reliable predictions, establishing economic facts is an elusive exercise. Battling statistical analyses come to opposite conclusions on the impact of fiscal stimulus, changes in tax rates, wage mandates, regulations, and so on. Into this void steps money and power, such that today we find ourselves with think tanks staffed by economists who provide their clients with the answers they seek. And since those with the deepest pockets can buy the results that best serve their goals, it is increasingly difficult to generate the wealth of evidence needed to offset market failures, inequities, and even existential threats.”
Then there is this nugget.
“One doesn’t even have to look far to find pseudo-economic science trumping real science.”
Then Bernstein puts the bow on it.
“There’s irony to all this. The most useful economists today are the ones who can most clearly see through pseudo-scientific evidence purporting to show that unfettered markets will self-regulate and that interventions will do more harm than good. In this regard, our best economists are the ones who look upon today’s economic science with a very jaundiced eye.”
Editor’s Note: A quote from our site rules, which you may read here:
Avoid single-sentence diary posts; use a micro-blogging site instead. Posts should be a minimum of 100 words and 2-3 paragraphs, composed with some consideration given to a thesis, analysis or commentary, and a summary. Exceptions to this are posts with art or video embedded; these kinds of posts should contain an explanation of the content at a minimum, with additional analysis and commentary preferred.
Please limit further comments about the site or staff to the most recent Watercooler post. -MyFDL Editor