When it comes to the some things like the economy or the weather, EVERYTHING is an ideology. I don’t know what you expected. There is no proof because there is no test or evidence.

Well, in the case of meteorology, the physics and mathematics are generally well understood. The problem in predicting the weather lies in the difficulty of collecting accurate, consistent, high-resolution data.

In the case of economics, I think you’re right that any theory will have a level of, let say abstraction…..it has to. You’re also right that applying full scientific rigor is difficult or even impossible. There’s just no way to experiment under controlled conditions. However I think it’s still possible to be empirical and utilitarianistic. The only other option being a slippery slide into the murky realm of philosophy, which is where I see the Austrian School heading.

Economists on both sides for decades have used any new fact as “proof” that their theories are valid. Or if evidence seems to lead in the opposite direction, there are plenty of other social factors to blame it on rather than their theories.

Data collection is also a serious problem in economics as well. An example is the failure of rating agencies to elucidate the risk in certain, now-infamous types of securities. That’s one of the reasons for the current instability of the stock market, people no longer trust numbers from the rating agencies, nor the government. (It’s not always in in the government’s interest to be honest about it’s economic numbers, that’s just common sense.)

If your point was to declare that Keynesian Economics is precise and scientific while Austrian is dogmatic, you are grossly in error.

I apologize if that’s what i seem to be implying. I don’t have a lot of confidence in Keynesianism either. I think the evidence that it actually works isn’t clear at all.

The Austrian school at least has the ability to be tested and proven on a small scale (running of a small business).

I can only give you a specific counterargument, that the running of a small business bears little comparison to the entire world economy. You’re talking about micro- economics not macro-.

The above is also true of ANY microeconomic theory…

When it comes to the some things like the economy or the weather, EVERYTHING is an ideology. I don’t know what you expected. There is no proof because there is no test or evidence.

Economists on both sides for decades have used any new fact as “proof” that their theories are valid. Or if evidence seems to lead in the opposite direction, there are plenty of other social factors to blame it on rather than their theories.

If your point was to declare that Keynesian Economics is precise and scientific while Austrian is dogmatic, you are grossly in error. If anything it is the other way around. The Austrian school at least has the ability to be tested and proven on a small scale (running of a small business). Here the actor-observer paradox carries little weight. If the business succeeds or fails is the final test result.

Keynesian economics has no such test since by definition it must be done on a large scale to provide the benefit it promises. Think of it. Keynesian economics is the capitalist’s communism. If such an oxymoron is not dogmatic, I would be hard pressed to find a better example.

An economist who claims to predict more that a few months into the future is not only a poor scientist, but dishonest as well. Media or politicans give them airtime because they’re either ignorant or have a conflict of interest to be nonobjective. This isn’t the first time that politicians have created statistics and predictions out of thin air….

Predicting the economy is the same as predicting the weather. the problem is not bad models. Nor is it an flawed understanding of the system, but the inherent randomness of the system as a whole. Having a large margin of error, in not a necessary or sufficient reason to totally discard econometrics. On the other hand, economics does suffer from the “actor-observer” paradox. This is the fact that if you have an accurate economic model, and everybody knows about it, it introduces a layer of feedback into the system that causes it to no longer be accurate.

The “Business Cycle” theory is is appealing on a superficial level. A number of its predictions don’t pan out in the real world. For example, it implies that as prices drop in a recession, spending should rebound, but the opposite seems to be true. Another problem is that such business “cycles” can and sometimes do wipe out entire civilizations. For example, the Maya, Athens, Rome (among other causes..), a number of Chinese dynasties… Avoiding a national collapse is a good reason not to support “Laissez Faire Economics”

My main criticism of the so-called Austrian School, is I feel it’s an Ideology, a dogma. As such, it resists correction, even in the face of unambiguous evidence. The old fallacy of “if the idea doesn’t fit the facts, then rearrange the facts…”

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

What I find ironic here is:

1) The less religious a person is, the more likely they will be willing to accept Keynesian economics.
2) The less religious a person is, the more likely they will be to believe that religious people are merely children who still believe in fairy tales like a Supreme Being.

Well, I think it would require a complete rejection of the establishment media. And pain—a lot of it—in order to humble people enough to focus on the real issues at hand.

From an LDS perspective, I think it also requires paying close attention to the spirit which teaches us what’s really going on. Without that, we’re easily distracted and deceived.

Connor, what do you think it will take to get the nation talking about the real issues at hand?

Absolutely, and I’m not here arguing that the economists themselves are to blame for the mess. Inasmuch as they’ve been cheerleaders for poor policy, then they deserve some of the blame. But the real culprits are those responsible for actually implementing these catastrophic economic programs and philosophies.

I’ve castigated plenty of such people elsewhere on this blog. The purpose of this specific post is to point out that the average person believes these economists to be wise and continues to listen to commentators that have been anything but correct in the past.

I believe Satan to be a Keynesian. I’m personally a subscriber to a mix of the Chicago and Austrian schools.