Why Economists Fail

I wasn't sure whether this belonged in economics or science. Which made E/E the clear logical choice.

I'm interested in his notion of "premature scientification." A new idea to chew on.

Also, science uses the language of mathematics. In that measure, economists are barely able to count to 10. Economists are barely able to to do algebra with two variables and have no clue what's going on in the multi-dimensional space where they assume all variables except the one they want to talk about are constant. They are to mathematics what creationists are to genetics.

A lot of economics utilizes very advanced math. But high-powered math by itself is not a guarantee of a successful model. Like good scientists, good economists are aware of what assumptions they are using, and what the limitations of their models are.

The only economics paper that I have ever seen that uses mathematics correctly is the Black-Scholes model of options. However, it wasn't very difficult for them to get that right, because it is essentially a diffusion equation which Fourier solved 150 years prior. Economists make horrible, shitty mathematicians partly because they are in such haste to get a result, that they hardly ever examine their assumptions and axioms. Many of their "proofs" involve restating a given, which they trumpet as a great result. A few of them have learned to use MATLAB or some other crank-turning algorithm, oblivious to the caveat of the programmer: garbage in, garbage out.

The way economics is taught is not scientific at all. The appeals to the "rational economic man", the assumptions of monotonicity, the poorly defined variables. Economics of today is as scientific as the astrology of 10 centuries ago. Just as economists have lots of "data" so too did the astrologers. They could predict when Mars would go into retrograde with great accuracy. But just as Mars going into retrograde did not correlate with the propensity of war on Earth, so too does a lot of economic "data" fail to correlate with some fundamental principle of theirs.

Economists need to quit flinging bullshit around and do much more observing before they try to draw conclusions. Biology is not as advanced mathematically as some of the other sciences, partly because there was a whole lot of stuff to observe before taking pen to paper to write an equation. Economics is just about as complex as biology when one tries to describe an economic transaction. Their simplification about price being where sellers and buyers come into equilibrium in the "market" is about as vapid as a biologist explaining evolution as "two organisms mate and then they have offspring". However, biologists, unlike economists, have a lot more stories to tell along the way, full of detailed observations.

Since economics is a "social" science, politics plays a great part in the desired outcome. They aren't afforded the luxury of examining an economic system and positing a relationship between two variables and then testing it. Their hypotheses already start out loaded with a viewpoint, be it "price is determined by supply and demand" or some similar schlock. Where are their studies that examine the nature of the function that maps the two variables supply and demand onto price? There aren't any, because they don't understand the topology involved in that last sentence, or why it would be necessary to investigate it.

I don't see any improvement in the situation any time soon. People inclined to study economics only learn enough mathematics to get by and are not the Hardy or Russell type of deep thinkers. Mathematicians who can analyze a subject in that level of detail shy away from mathematics partly because it is a swamp full of fetid axioms and ridiculous assumptions.

because there are so many variables involved. Yes, you can cut out some of the variables and streamline some of the other variables to get a number at the end of an equation, but it's always going to be an idea of an outcome and not an accurate prediction. We also tend not to get bent out of shape when our predictions fail, but instead jump back into it to figure out where me missed something. (Hey, that can be published too.)

Economics is the same way, except I think a lot of economists get fooled by the notion that because you're dealing with numbers on the front end, what comes out the back end should also look like a number, and what is in the middle should look like an equation. (A mistake biologists would never make! We're well aware of what come out of the back end, and numbers ain't it!)

Predictability is punished by nature. The predictable get eaten.

Economists should be trained as ecologists first, maybe a minimum four year degree in biology ought to be required before an economics school even looks at an applicant. Forget the fine equations of the physicists and mathematicians: get down and dirty and try to figure out something simple (ha ha!) like the distribution of hermit crabs in the intertidal zone before you even pretend to understand economics.

The problem with modern markets is that we build and measure them using simplistic theories that are entirely unsound. Not surprisingly these markets collapse.

We live in a leaning tower. Building the tower higher is a bad idea.

It's not that economics and biology can't be studied using mathematics -- one just has to approach it properly. If you want to see some of the right way to use mathematics to study biology, check the LANL archives: http://xxx.lanl.gov/ click on the link to Biological Physics or the Quantitative Biology links.

Resource based economies, energy theory of value, two very scientific approaches to economy, but closer to ecology in how things work.

He read a wiki article...

Good for you.

And I don't even think there's a wikipedia article for "energy theory of value." I think it must be called something else.

Let me suggest a book I think you'll like a lot. It captures the essence of what Odum etal attempt to capture and incorporates it into a larger research strategy that gets you from the physics to how people behave.

http://www.amazon.com/Cannibals-Kings-Cultures-Marvin-Harris/dp/067972849X

I wouldn't judge it by online reviews as I think your interest in energy will leave you with a different takeaway than most who write them.

I'll check that book out.

This is the sort of asinine thing that turns people off here.

I would be interested in more articles discussing objective economics resulting in (systems that more resemble) ecological systems. I came to the conclusion on my own (and it can be seen in my arguments witl GilderGuider).

It isn't my fault that you are uninformed.

One may not even discern what the fuck you mean by it (are you saying you agree or not?).

It should have been a reference to you staying the night at a Holiday Inn.

Here, try this:

Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 11:35 PM by kristopher
The fact is that there are two branches of economics, not dozens and dozens. Go check any Econ 101 text to confirm that.

The reason that is germane is that it indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject matter; an unfamiliarity that you demonstrate again in post 53 when you use "economic systems" as an argument related to the claims in the OP. There is a vast difference between the predictability offered by the tools of microeconomics - which is mostly what is is being criticized - and the various systems those tools are used to describe in the area of macroeconomics.

You are pointing to economic systems that are based on normative beliefs (please be sure you get that point), not on economic systems that are designed by economists. Asking which form of economic system is "right" is another sure giveaway that your knowledge base isn't sufficient it make a judgment on the topic since what you are asking is effectively "who's beliefs about what is important in life is correct". Do you follow that?

Let me provide an actual example of economics at work in the real world to demonstrate the other side of the coin - what economics CAN do with great precision.

A given fish population is exploited by fishermen.
The fish have a known and predictable rate of reproduction.
The technologies and capabilities of the fishing fleet are also known.
Left to the forces of supply and demand, the fishing fleet goes through a half century of boom or bust cycles related to overfishing and the way the fluctuating fish stock either pulls new boats into the fleet in times of plenty or forces them out when stocks crash.
Various policies are tried to stabilize the situation but none are based on the tools used in economic analysis and all of them failed - often making the situation worse.
An enterprising economist took on the challenge and charted the interplay of the variables, producing a curious graph that looked like a spiral circling in to a center point.
What was happening to cause the boom or bust cycles was occurring because the price and population signals that the fleet and the regulators were responding to didn't give the proper data to predict the next year or the year after that or the year after that.
The spiral was a forecast of where a properly applied policy would bring the fleet and the population into alignment in maybe ten years. By using the predictions offered in the analysis they were able to stabilize the fish population and the job prospects of those involved in the fishing fleet in about 3 years.
The policy that was able to do this was one of many possible policy options, but it was the only one that was able to accomplish the goal.
Without that analysis that 50 year problem would be ongoing today; a situation that fished the stock down to levels that frequently put the species at risk of extinction should an unexpected stressor emerge.

THAT is typical of what the "professional economists" are largely doing.

With that in mind please reread the OP and your posts before replying.

The economists are globbing onto that too, as they do any shiny new math.

Comparing "subjective economics" to"objective science" is folly.

...for one branch of observations. Instead of Newtons Laws, Relativity, people just claimed completely bizarre equations for this interpretation of physical reality (that which is covered by my simple example; I am not saying Newtons Laws or Relativity cover everything).

In stark contrast to the dozens and dozens of branches of economics that pretend to know the correct way for the production and distribution of goods and services in society.

I mean, you aren't just making it up or getting confused again are you?

"the dozens and dozens of branches of economics that pretend to know the correct way for the production and distribution of goods and services in society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_economics

I'm specifically talking about branches of acceptable economic systems. From your own link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system

Of course you will attempt to misrepresent my position, but anyone else reading this will understand what I am saying.

And just like physics there are any number of areas of applications. When you are working in the field of chemistry, physics is applicable. When you working in the field fluid dynamics, physics is applicable.

Same thing with economics. I wouldn't argue a bit about criticizing various schools of thought in macro. However, the generalized criticism on this thread, criticism that doesn't have the slightest idea of even basics such as the difference between macro and micro, is hard to fathom from people that consider themselves informed.

We're not talking about application, we're talking about acceptable explanations for observable behavior. Few scientists would accept Sorce Theory to explain gravity (among other things).

Sorce Theory vs Relativity / "Market economics" vs "Gift economy." They're both theories to explain a given behavior, in the former sense we're explaining reality as it relates to physical interactions, in the latter we are explaining how the distribution and production of goods in society occurs.

You wrote that there are "dozens and dozens of branches of economics", there aren't; there are only two. You are now using your standard "throw out a bunch of crap and hope everyone forgets what I said" strategy.

Two branches - microeconomics and macroeconomics.

You're trying to restrict what I was saying to something else.

You wrote: "In stark contrast to the dozens and dozens of branches of economics that pretend to know the correct way for the production and distribution of goods and services in society."

As I understand your objection you saying that my focus on whether the areas of study you were thinking of as "branches" were in fact, branches or not is really a sidebar; and that the real point you were making is correct. Is that right?

You will say the analogy is incorrect because you say so.

When we look at physics we can see dozens of theories of gravity that were simply rejected and have no scientific basis.

Sorce Theory, Wave Theory, Cognitive-Theoretic Model, ECE Theory, Electrogravitational Field Theory, etc, the list goes on and on.

With economics we have a similar situation.

Capitalism, communism, socialism, mercantilism, fudealism, or for a more nuanced analysis, classical, Marxian, neoclassical, and so on.

We know Newton and Einstein are right. Which form of economic system is right?

Do you know? I sure as fuck don't. This is precisely why I reject "subjective economics."

The fact is that there are two branches of economics, not dozens and dozens. Go check any Econ 101 text to confirm that.

The reason that is germane is that it indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject matter; an unfamiliarity that you demonstrate again in post 53 when you use "economic systems" as an argument related to the claims in the OP. There is a vast difference between the predictability offered by the tools of microeconomics - which is mostly what is is being criticized - and the various systems those tools are used to describe in the area of macroeconomics.

You are pointing to economic systems that are based on normative beliefs (please be sure you get that point), not on economic systems that are designed by economists. Asking which form of economic system is "right" is another sure giveaway that your knowledge base isn't sufficient it make a judgment on the topic since what you are asking is effectively "who's beliefs about what is important in life is correct". Do you follow that?

Let me provide an actual example of economics at work in the real world to demonstrate the other side of the coin - what economics CAN do with great precision.

A given fish population is exploited by fishermen.
The fish have a known and predictable rate of reproduction.
The technologies and capabilities of the fishing fleet are also known.
Left to the forces of supply and demand, the fishing fleet goes through a half century of boom or bust cycles related to overfishing and the way the fluctuating fish stock either pulls new boats into the fleet in times of plenty or forces them out when stocks crash.
Various policies are tried to stabilize the situation but none are based on the tools used in economic analysis and all of them failed - often making the situation worse.
An enterprising economist took on the challenge and charted the interplay of the variables, producing a curious graph that looked like a spiral circling in to a center point.
What was happening to cause the boom or bust cycles was occurring because the price and population signals that the fleet and the regulators were responding to didn't give the proper data to predict the next year or the year after that or the year after that.
The spiral was a forecast of where a properly applied policy would bring the fleet and the population into alignment in maybe ten years. By using the predictions offered in the analysis they were able to stabilize the fish population and the job prospects of those involved in the fishing fleet in about 3 years.
The policy that was able to do this was one of many possible policy options, but it was the only one that was able to accomplish the goal.
Without that analysis that 50 year problem would be ongoing today; a situation that fished the stock down to levels that frequently put the species at risk of extinction should an unexpected stressor emerge.

THAT is typical of what the "professional economists" are largely doing.

With that in mind please reread the OP and your posts before replying.

You are pointing to economic systems that are based on normative beliefs (please be sure you get that point), not on economic systems that are designed by economists. Asking which form of economic system is "right" is another sure giveaway that your knowledge base isn't sufficient it make a judgment on the topic since what you are asking is effectively "who's beliefs about what is important in life is correct". Do you follow that?

A communist economist will observe completely different relationships that a capitalist economist would, and would in fact produce completely different solutions to an economic problem. Just like one who believes in Wave theory observes a completely different relationship to that who believes in Relativity. The key difference being that few people believe in Wave theory as it relates to an explanation for gravity, and that the vast majority of economics are based on subjective premises'.

And this is the problem, even with your naive example. Fishing quotas solve the "problem" from a subjective 'economic' perspective, but do not solve any problems from an *ecological* perspective, as fish stocks remain on the decline and will continue to do so.

But sometimes you just end up back at that dumb-assed stump...

Here, try again:

Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 11:35 PM by kristopher
The fact is that there are two branches of economics, not dozens and dozens. Go check any Econ 101 text to confirm that.

The reason that is germane is that it indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject matter; an unfamiliarity that you demonstrate again in post 53 when you use "economic systems" as an argument related to the claims in the OP. There is a vast difference between the predictability offered by the tools of microeconomics - which is mostly what is is being criticized - and the various systems those tools are used to describe in the area of macroeconomics.

You are pointing to economic systems that are based on normative beliefs (please be sure you get that point), not on economic systems that are designed by economists. Asking which form of economic system is "right" is another sure giveaway that your knowledge base isn't sufficient it make a judgment on the topic since what you are asking is effectively "who's beliefs about what is important in life is correct". Do you follow that?

Let me provide an actual example of economics at work in the real world to demonstrate the other side of the coin - what economics CAN do with great precision.

A given fish population is exploited by fishermen.
The fish have a known and predictable rate of reproduction.
The technologies and capabilities of the fishing fleet are also known.
Left to the forces of supply and demand, the fishing fleet goes through a half century of boom or bust cycles related to overfishing and the way the fluctuating fish stock either pulls new boats into the fleet in times of plenty or forces them out when stocks crash.
Various policies are tried to stabilize the situation but none are based on the tools used in economic analysis and all of them failed - often making the situation worse.
An enterprising economist took on the challenge and charted the interplay of the variables, producing a curious graph that looked like a spiral circling in to a center point.
What was happening to cause the boom or bust cycles was occurring because the price and population signals that the fleet and the regulators were responding to didn't give the proper data to predict the next year or the year after that or the year after that.
The spiral was a forecast of where a properly applied policy would bring the fleet and the population into alignment in maybe ten years. By using the predictions offered in the analysis they were able to stabilize the fish population and the job prospects of those involved in the fishing fleet in about 3 years.
The policy that was able to do this was one of many possible policy options, but it was the only one that was able to accomplish the goal.
Without that analysis that 50 year problem would be ongoing today; a situation that fished the stock down to levels that frequently put the species at risk of extinction should an unexpected stressor emerge.

THAT is typical of what the "professional economists" are largely doing.

With that in mind please reread the OP and your posts before replying.

However, as someone who hunts for the truth, I see the fact that truth via the sciences requires a modern laboratory, and since those are funded by the highest bidder, science is entering an age wherein the truth will also be purchased. The Corporations will approve of "Truth" just as the Church once did. And although no modern day Galileos will be burnt at the stake, they will continue to be black listed.

Already George Carlo has been blacklisted for not slanting his results on brain injury resulting from EMF's to the liking of the cell phone industry, and Pusztai was blacklisted for not slanting his findings on GMO potatoes and the health of the stomachs of lab rats.

The RW effectively brought about an entire revolution not only in the field of economics, but also in the entire lifestyle of the United States by their relentless insistence that Supply Side Economics is and was the be all and end all of all theories. Thus the American public was led into believing that global outsourcing was good - and since the players at the top were smart enough o go for it only one industry at a time, people who weren't affected didn't' speak out against it until their industry was affected.

The textile workers in the early 1980's, and the auto workers of the late eighties and the early nineties saw their jobs go to distant places. While computer savants just said, "Ah, but they needed to go to college and use their brains so they would hold down a job that cannot go overseas." (As though those in the auto industries were complete dummies who never used their brains.) Then the computer industry and even biology and chemistry research positions went outside this country, so that now, we re all united (or most of us) behind the notion that this outsourcing stuff hurt us as a nation.

Computer science and space science (including astrophysics and the like) tends to be the least corrupted fields in my observation (since there's nothing to gain, for the most part, in either field).

"The dazzling achievements of science have encouraged scholars in a great many fields to ape science’s methods in the hope of duplicating its successes"

The phrase "ape science's methods" is kind of loaded. It implies somebody is using the scientific method improperly, but in what specific way? I believe the scientific method can be usefully applied to pretty much any field of study. Like any tool, if used improperly it gives you bad results.

The ArchDruid Report???

Please. This guy is a fruitcake and while he may have done "extensive reading" on the topic of economics it is clear he read everything through a powerful prism that distorted the content to the point that he totally avoided actually learning anything from the experience.

The short version of concrete criticism is that he is completely misstating just what economists themselves consider economics to be. He is doing nothing except setting up a very poorly constructed straw man.

He's talking about "Economists". Specifically, the kind of professional economists that get on the TV and tell people what the economy is doing. As individuals they are vulnerable to all kinds of influences outside the boundaries of their field, especially status-seeking urges and herding behaviour. They can make bad calls very consistently because their world-view is at least as distorted as you claim Greer's to be.

Why? What difference does it make if some druid or Jay Hanson think economics is a religious rite rather than a science? What difference do their opinions make that it should trigger you hard?

Try saying this:

"Shrug."

It really helps.

I agree with Nnad's on one thing only - ignorance is evil. Why do you take such pleasure in promoting it?

Economics can be a useful tool, but economists can be like horses with blinders on.

Especially because after the collapse of the Big Players (The Entire "Too Big TO Fail" Crowd really) we the public got to find out that although the major players had hired brilliant young minds to create complex computer models on which the major players could then model their behavior, it was widely accepted that the computer models did not have to take into account the notion that at some point in time, housing prices might drop.

This is just so ludicrous in and of itself that I don't know where to begin.

I mean it's one thing when Uncle Sammie the Compulsive Gambler doesn't factor into his thinking the fact that at some point he might lose his touch on the roulette wheel and thus lose that whole pile of dough. And since you know that about Sammie, you don't invest any of your money with him to play - cuz he doesn't set any of his big wins aside, he just continually puts it all on whatever new number his mind comes up with for that roulette spin.

But to think that our entire financial system operated the way that Uncle Sammie did - that is mind bogling!

"This is a crock..."
"This guy is a fruitcake"

Not.

So, you'll see his straw man and raise him an ad hominem?

C'mon, you can do better than that.

"The short version of concrete criticism is that he is completely misstating just what economists themselves consider economics to be. He is doing nothing except setting up a very poorly constructed straw man."

that untrammeled capitalism is the font from which all blessings flow, is like basing geometry on the proposition that a right triangle is one with 3 right angles. Pythagoras, doncha know.

Economics: the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

of profits. In the real world, economics is that branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management in such a way as to maximize profits and minimize costs.
Friedmanomics has been the dominant force in economic thinking and theorizing at least since the Reagan administration, and corporate America has been its chief exponent. Markets rule. Everything has its price. Labor is a commodity, like any other, to be bought as cheaply as possible and discarded when no longer useful. Like other waste products, superfluous or aged out workers are to be got rid of as cheaply as possible. The environment is a free good, open to maximum exploitation by anyone with the capital to do so. Regulation is a hindrance, therefore bad. Capital's only obligation is to increase itself. Whatever the definition of economics, these are the operating principals. The "science" of economics is bent to these ends.
Since Friedman, the University of Chicago has 9 Royal Bank of Sweden (AKA Nobel) economics prizes to its credit. They have a lot to answer for. If I'm not mistaken, the folks who created the equations behind the entire derivitaves scam also won a "Nobel". It is unclear how derivative trading aids the production and distrubition of goods and services.

Your response is bizarre - when shown the *standard* definition (quoted from a very reputable source) you instead choose to ignore that and rewrite from your original perspective of ignorance. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to take the hint that your understanding has some fundamental gaps and seek to rectify the lack so that you can form judgments that better serve your needs?

Always a pleasure to be schooled by my betters. It gives me something to aspire to.

Attempting to conceal your own arrogance behind faux humility and insinuations that I'm arrogant.

You either are arrogant, or you play someone with unbridled arrogance on these boards. In spite of those with differing viewpoints attempting to have a dialogue with you, all you can ever do is resort to smug, self-congratulatory derision and constant reference to their "ignorance."

If that isn't arrogance, I'm not sure what is. :shrug:

Define: ignorance
the lack of knowledge or education
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

When I use the word ignorance I use it in accordance with its defined meaning. I'm sorry you have a problem with that. I've reviewed this sub-thread and I stand by my remarks. I was not rude nor was I arrogant.

I find your your persona on this board to be that of an arrogant, nasty, condescending, supercilious bully. But hey, this is just other peoples' opinion of your interweb persona. It's not like it's real life or anything.

I certainly prefer a cordial relationship but when there is a choice between that or correcting inaccurate or false information I choose to pursue the course to valid understanding. Often those that care little for accuracy or valid logic take offense; that isn't unexpected.

can correct misinformation without condescension or bullying.

It's a mistake to think of it as a choice between cordial relations and corrections. It is possible to do both, you just need to open your heart to the other person as well as the facts.

But to think it is universally applicable is naive. I'd also judge that it nothing short of pie-in-the-sky (and rather self serving) to try and fit it to internet forums. Courtesy is a two way street - a fact that some very one way people often forget.

Courtesy is a two way street - a fact that some very one way people often forget.

Project much?

:eyes:

If you respond to the above poster he will continue responding until he has the last word. The best you can do is simply express your point and ignore him from that point on.

Otherwise you will have a thread explode (believe me, the
"Nordel Incident" taught me a valuable lesson with regards to reasoning with them).

Best to just let him finish up with his asinine insults.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=211502&mesg_id=211837

This is why I no longer give a shit what this guy says, he is incoherent and insane most of the time.

Now get off that stump and finish the discussion. You still have to do the part where you face up to the fact that you have been writing a bunch of uninformed hooey. I've been very explicit and on topic and all you've responded with are insults. The OP is attacking the TOOLS of economics. That is the province of microeconomics and those tools are widely regarded as being extremely predictive. That is the issue rised by the OP - the "premature scientification" of economics.

The article was garbage for the same reason your remarks are garbage - it argues against microeconomics (the tools) by invoking macroeconomics - which deals with a very different set of parameters than microeconomics. MACROeconomics is greatly influenced by the normative values of people as they try to devise/justify a system that accords with their beliefs about what OUGHT to be.
The actual work of professional economists (the group targeted in the article) is most often involved in projects like I described to you. They work with carefully defined, limited problems and the tools they use are extremely valid.

That is not in dispute.

The ONLY thing in dispute is the degree to which you understand what you are talking about.

You pretend it is a lot.

It isn't.

So...

Here, try again:

Edited on Sat Sep-26-09 11:35 PM by kristopher
The fact is that there are two branches of economics, not dozens and dozens. Go check any Econ 101 text to confirm that.

The reason that is germane is that it indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject matter; an unfamiliarity that you demonstrate again in post 53 when you use "economic systems" as an argument related to the claims in the OP. There is a vast difference between the predictability offered by the tools of microeconomics - which is mostly what is is being criticized - and the various systems those tools are used to describe in the area of macroeconomics.

You are pointing to economic systems that are based on normative beliefs (please be sure you get that point), not on economic systems that are designed by economists. Asking which form of economic system is "right" is another sure giveaway that your knowledge base isn't sufficient it make a judgment on the topic since what you are asking is effectively "who's beliefs about what is important in life is correct". Do you follow that?

Let me provide an actual example of economics at work in the real world to demonstrate the other side of the coin - what economics CAN do with great precision.

A given fish population is exploited by fishermen.
The fish have a known and predictable rate of reproduction.
The technologies and capabilities of the fishing fleet are also known.
Left to the forces of supply and demand, the fishing fleet goes through a half century of boom or bust cycles related to overfishing and the way the fluctuating fish stock either pulls new boats into the fleet in times of plenty or forces them out when stocks crash.
Various policies are tried to stabilize the situation but none are based on the tools used in economic analysis and all of them failed - often making the situation worse.
An enterprising economist took on the challenge and charted the interplay of the variables, producing a curious graph that looked like a spiral circling in to a center point.
What was happening to cause the boom or bust cycles was occurring because the price and population signals that the fleet and the regulators were responding to didn't give the proper data to predict the next year or the year after that or the year after that.
The spiral was a forecast of where a properly applied policy would bring the fleet and the population into alignment in maybe ten years. By using the predictions offered in the analysis they were able to stabilize the fish population and the job prospects of those involved in the fishing fleet in about 3 years.
The policy that was able to do this was one of many possible policy options, but it was the only one that was able to accomplish the goal.
Without that analysis that 50 year problem would be ongoing today; a situation that fished the stock down to levels that frequently put the species at risk of extinction should an unexpected stressor emerge.

THAT is typical of what the "professional economists" are largely doing.

With that in mind please reread the OP and your posts before replying.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=211502&mesg_id=211837

> I was not rude nor was I arrogant.

That's your opinion, kristopher, and it's not for you to say what your effect is on others.

Many of your posts strike me as rude and arrogant. That's the effect on me, and that's the fact of the matter. You don't get any say in it.

You can think I'm arrogant, but that doesn't make it so. For example, you can be humiliated by your own failure to be "right" and it would say nothing about my character if you call me arrogant for having proved that there is an objective standard of truth that you deviated from.
For me to be arrogant, it would need to incorporate a prideful motive; and I'm neither particularly proud of the fact that I happen to know more than someone on a particular issue (I'm very aware that others know more than I on different points) nor am I making these corrections because I enjoy it.

I AM motivated by the desire to see energy policy move forward to solve our energy and climate problems with full public support. To that end the public needs accurate information, not a bunch of kneejerk beliefs created by the very active campaigns of the entrenched energy industries.

Take the topic of the OP for example. The best guide we have for evaluating the different policy choices available to us comes from good, honest work by economists. That article damages the ability of those people to communicate their message accurately to the voters ultimately responsible for policy choices. It is therefore important to me that the difference between the capabilities of the tools of microeconomics and the failures of macroeconomics not be blurred - which is exactly what the OP and the cheerleadrs for it do.

Arrogance has nothing to do with it no matter what you "feel".

never mind

Think I'll do the same (won't even be looking at this thread again since I know it is just drivel being spouted by the poster in question).

about how quantum mechanics explains his inability to think clearly.

It was pretty classic.

...is bound to fail. You can have as much fancy mathematics you want, if the starting assumptions you put in as input suck you are going to get BS output. Economics (except for some maverick fields like Game Theory and Economic Psychology) for some reason has stubbornly held of to obsolete notion of human behavior.

Of course some schools of Economics (the Austrian School in particular) are transparently ideological secular religion, the Austrian Schools reject Empiricism and the scientific method, for Christ's sake...

Which is why they never are.