So, after all the bashing that unfettered capitalism has been receiving the last few weeks,
I thought I’d give it another kick while it’s down.
Did you know that the Economics Nobel prize is not a real nobel prize?
I mention this, because the media and policy wonks who take such important decisions about resource allocation in
our society have coat-tailed on the reputation that they work in a hard science and know what they’re talking about -
backed up by a Nobel prize for their field.
In fact, the main economist in demand now for describing the causes and likely outcomes from the credit crunch
is probably Nouriel Roubini, who has been shunned by his field for his lack of belief in the neo-equilibrium model
and his lack of formal models for his theories.
So, should we not just end this charade, and call the field a branch of sociology?
Disclaimer: i work in an equally bogus field, that often inappropriately appends the word science to the name of our area.
Sociology with statistics, really.
This idea that you can simulate the behaviour of millions of actors in a social field like a market with a few crude maths equations… don’t buy it.
Good find James. So there is no such thing as the the Nobel prize in Economics. Those crafty and devious bankers. How long more do we have to suffer under their yoke of tyranny?
Yup, I knew that. But I only found it out about a month ago - Ilargi, who writes theautomaticearth aggregator (theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/) has a bee in his bonnet about it.
There is an existing thread on Nouriel Roubini (globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/) aka Mish has also been quite accurate. It was much easier to keep track of what Roubini was saying before his site went subscription only. (Roubini is currently predicting step 9 of his 12 steps to meltdown - hedge fund collapses - will happen out of sequence due to the ban on short selling, I believe).
For the rest, many ‘economists’ give our own heroes of hope over experience a run for their money. Some do quite good analysis after the fact (like Paul Krugman, IMO), but a huge amount of the American ones are deeply involved in party politics.
From my point of view it’s not the dismal science because of it’s outlook, but because it’s so bad at what it claims to do - predict how the economies of the world will pan out - dismally bad in fact.
PS No offence intended geckko, for the record, most IT people are shite too. Like 90% of them, I consider myself above average
Yeah, but religion isn’t real either and just try opening a debate on reducing its social capital.
Oh, can open … worms escaping …