A previous post discussed economics reasoning and how flawed it is, how economists can be blind to arguments that run counter to their pre-existing assumptions. That's actually a fairly natural human trait; we all have beliefs that fall more on the side of articles of faith than result from solid reasoning. I imagine that can arise in any of a number of ways: indoctrination, favorable association, a lack of deep thought, and so forth.
But it's become clear to many people that economists suffer from something else, what Driskill calls (in his previously-referenced paper) the possible belief that, "economists are mere propagandists and handmaidens in service of some philosophical or political goal."
I would say that belief isn't just possible, it's absolutely true, that economics falls a lot closer to political science than to actual science. Almost none of the criteria followed by "real" scientists are used by economists. Even something so basic as experimentation has to be abstracted into unrealistic grad student activities that often more closely resemble frat hazing rituals than serious investigations into reality. And the profession totally punts when it comes to macroeconomics, correctly surmising that few governments will stand still for becoming laboratories.
Question: is there such a thing as a "conservative" mathematician? A "liberal" physicist? A "supply-side" mechanical engineer? Of course not. True science is a quest for truth based on generally accepted axioms, principles, and methods of reasoning. Economics tends to be a quest for justification based on one-off assumptions and improvised analytical techniques.
I don't want to be totally unfair here. Economics is still young, and it's still more aspirational than anything else. Important insights have come out of the attempt to discover how markets work, how incentives are useful in effecting or stifling change, how we can try to optimize the production and delivery of goods and services. The best economists are trying to push back the veil of ignorance a little at a time, and they're making progress.
But that ignores the centrality of economics to the life of the world. Economists are used to justify important political decisions; as an example, the near-universal (and flawed) belief that free trade is always good has been used to effect policies that have hurt many people. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? No one knows.
This issue is especially important now, when a shaky economy threatens to damage the prospects of nation and people, yet we still count mainly on the economists to help us through it. Should we bail out Bear Stearns? There is no consensus, so we're all just flying blind.
Look at this post. The discussion concerns whether, where globalization is concerned, the "tide of opinion amongst...academic economists...has shifted." Substitute "the speed of light" for "globalization," "physicists" for "economists," and you have a sentence that is utterly impossible.
What we have in economics far too much of the time is faux science, a practice that has adopted some of the trappings of real science but little of the rigor. Think about how much money is spent each year on predictive economic models, then think about how many interviews have been conducted the past few weeks in which an economist is asked, "Are we in a recession?" The typical answer, "Only time will tell." (Maybe Nancy Reagan had it right when she consulted an astrologer.) From Keynes through Krugman:
But it's become clear to many people that economists suffer from something else, what Driskill calls (in his previously-referenced paper) the possible belief that, "economists are mere propagandists and handmaidens in service of some philosophical or political goal."
I would say that belief isn't just possible, it's absolutely true, that economics falls a lot closer to political science than to actual science. Almost none of the criteria followed by "real" scientists are used by economists. Even something so basic as experimentation has to be abstracted into unrealistic grad student activities that often more closely resemble frat hazing rituals than serious investigations into reality. And the profession totally punts when it comes to macroeconomics, correctly surmising that few governments will stand still for becoming laboratories.
Question: is there such a thing as a "conservative" mathematician? A "liberal" physicist? A "supply-side" mechanical engineer? Of course not. True science is a quest for truth based on generally accepted axioms, principles, and methods of reasoning. Economics tends to be a quest for justification based on one-off assumptions and improvised analytical techniques.
I don't want to be totally unfair here. Economics is still young, and it's still more aspirational than anything else. Important insights have come out of the attempt to discover how markets work, how incentives are useful in effecting or stifling change, how we can try to optimize the production and delivery of goods and services. The best economists are trying to push back the veil of ignorance a little at a time, and they're making progress.
But that ignores the centrality of economics to the life of the world. Economists are used to justify important political decisions; as an example, the near-universal (and flawed) belief that free trade is always good has been used to effect policies that have hurt many people. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? No one knows.
This issue is especially important now, when a shaky economy threatens to damage the prospects of nation and people, yet we still count mainly on the economists to help us through it. Should we bail out Bear Stearns? There is no consensus, so we're all just flying blind.
Look at this post. The discussion concerns whether, where globalization is concerned, the "tide of opinion amongst...academic economists...has shifted." Substitute "the speed of light" for "globalization," "physicists" for "economists," and you have a sentence that is utterly impossible.
What we have in economics far too much of the time is faux science, a practice that has adopted some of the trappings of real science but little of the rigor. Think about how much money is spent each year on predictive economic models, then think about how many interviews have been conducted the past few weeks in which an economist is asked, "Are we in a recession?" The typical answer, "Only time will tell." (Maybe Nancy Reagan had it right when she consulted an astrologer.) From Keynes through Krugman:
In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.I'm not arguing that we ignore everything economists have to say, I'm just saying that we need to start taking a more critical view. Rather than being snowed by mathematics and jargon, we need to know what the implications of following the recommendations of these modern necromancers are. They may have informed opinion, but, in the end, economists are just offering...opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment