Message-ID: <003801bdfc6a$95881ba0$d712fea9@jay98> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:45:32 -1000 From: Jay Hanson <mailto:j@QMAIL.COM> Subject: politics in disguise To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
A large percentage of the Nobel laureates in economics live in cocoons.
-- E.O. Wilson
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt
but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise ...
economics is a form of brain damage. -- Hazel Henderson
----
Economics is properly seen as politics -- not science -- for two reasons:
(1) Economists do not use the "scientific method". (2) The economist's
agenda is explicitly "normative" (political).
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth
from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1 Observe some aspect of the universe.
2 Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3 Use the theory to make predictions.
4 Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5 Modify the theory in the light of your results.
Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ]
Economists will argue that "Economic systems are generally too complex to
be replicated in a laboratory environment, so economists analyze the data."
But consider the heart and soul of economics: the "rational utility
mazimizer".
"One of the peculiarities of economics is that it still rests on a
behavioral assumption -- rational utility maximization -- that has long
since been rejected by sociologists and psychologists who specialize in
studying human behavior. Rational individual utility (income) maximization
was the common assumption of all social science in the nineteenth century,
but only economics continues to use it.
"Contrary behavioral evidence has had little impact on economics because
having a theory of how the world 'ought' to act, economists can reject all
manner of evidence showing that individuals are not rational utility
maximizers. Actions that are not rational maximizations exist, but they are
labeled 'market imperfections' that 'ought' to be eliminated. Individual
economic actors 'ought' to be rational utility maximizers and they can be
taught to do what they 'ought' to do. Prescription dominates description in
economics, while the reverse is true in the other social sciences that study
real human behavior.
"Besides, the world is a complicated place, which means you can see pretty
much what you want to see." [p. 216, Thurow, 1983,
http://dieoff.com/page162.htm ]
The reason that economists cling to nineteenth-century behavioral
assumptions is because without them, they are out of a job!
I'ts a fact of life that economic theories can only be replaced by better
economic theories. And since economists can not invent a better theory
because of a fundementally-flawed world view, they work to make the world
match existing theory. If economists told the truth, they would be
unemployed.
The solution of course, it to junk economics and economists and start over:
"No compelling reason has ever been offered why the same strategy [of
consilience] should not work to unite the natural sciences with the social
sciences and humanities. The difference between the two domains is in the
magnitude of the problem, not the principles needed for its solution."
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow1.htm
Jay
-------------------------
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm