Somewhere in the comments far below our friend Big Swede brought us an article from Heritage, said that I would not look at it due to its source, which of course meant that I had to go look at the damned thing. Its conclusion (in 2005) was that European economies were suffering from too much government spending. It was a farce, as the authors could not separate and isolate variables, but that was also its strength. Dealing as they were with a massive data set and no meaningful way to manipulate it, the authors were free to insert their ideology to force their conclusion. The report was garbage, the science behind it the “Natelson method”, named after the self-proclaimed constitutional scholar who also self-validated in neoclassical economics. He introduced new depth and rigor into the field of confirmation bias.
Neoclassical economics is bullshit that persists due to its ideological utility. It serves power well, and so is the only economics taught at our most prestigious universities. Max Plank said that new scientific truth only triumphs because old scientists die off. The current bankruptcy of economics will persist until the Geithners, Summers and Greenspans join Milton Friedman in slumber, and that cannot happen soon enough.
Look what they are doing to us! Austerity, the “fiscal cliff” are political agendas that have their roots in bullshit economics. The stealth target is to gut our great social programs, and Democrats, please smell the coffee: your Obama is as filthy stealthy as any of them.
I started to read this article, The Trillion Dollar Cat Shit Coin, with only mild interest until I realized that the author, Rob Urie, had some real juice. I jumped to the bottom to check his credentials. He has none! I Binged him – he doesn’t turn up! His words must stand on their own without and Ivy League or Chicago hue.
And they do, in my opinion. Due to his apparent lack of creds in the field of economics, the guy actually has some deeper understanding of economics. Steve Keen, an iconoclast in the field, has noted that
Neoclassical economics has effectively insulated itself from the great advances made in science and engineering over the last 40 years. This self-imposed isolation must come to an end. For while the concepts of neoclassical economics appear difficult, they are actually quaint in comparison to the sophistication evident in today’s mathematics, engineering, computing, evolutionary biology and physics. In order to advance, economics must humbly submit to learning from disciplines that it has studiously ignored for so long. Some researchers in outside fields have called for the wholesale replacement of standard economics curricula, using at least the building blocks of modern thought inherent in other disciplines. In light of the catastrophe economists have visited upon the real world, those calls carry substantial weight.
Urie’s piece is worth a read for the clarity he brings to economics due to his credentials: he is, as his brief bio says at the and, an “artist and political economist,” and not pedigreed in economics. He therefore has some real insight.