Letters to the Editor
ELYDOG
Published Letters: 497 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Dr. Doug
[Read the article: Economists surprised consumers aren't superhuman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who do you work for?
You claim that economists work from very complicated economic models that only they can understand, and that predict the past better than the future. (!)
I think many of the economic/mathematical 'inputs' they are use are partial or inaccurate, which explains the credulousness of many forecasts. From what I can tell, definitions of 'recession', 'inflation', 'unemployment,' 'gross national product', 'average income' and others are incomplete. Most ignore environmental costs. International economic figures don't seem to be included in national economic figures.
It boils down to traditional ways of looking at the economy miss what is actually happening to real people. I guess what I'm talking about is a people's economist. So, question again, who do you work for?
Bank, business, government, university, foundation?
-
Thanks for responding
[Read the article: Economists surprised consumers aren't superhuman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]However, you still didn't really answer the question.
I've read many books on economics, from a left wing perspective - Marx even. I took my 'macro-economics' class from a top U.S. economist, amazingly enough. He bothered to teach undergrads.
Let me ask you, if you specialized in some aspect of economics that was not useful to the corporations, the present government, or corporations that are 'using' the public university's work, would you get tenure? Working on this 'fee' analysis seems like micro-economics, which is not really what we are talking about here. I know 'academe' is all about 'objectivity' but I know from an 'intimate' knowledge of some academics, if you stray, you might not stay.
The hostility you are hearing is from people who are forced to listen to 'economists' talking about, not fees, but unemployment, inflation, debt, the 'free' market, 'free' trade, taxes, income, class, the WTO, the World "Bank", deregulation, 401Ks, privatization, market credibility, ratings agencies, auditing firms, environmental costs, tax cuts, government 'regulation', social ownership, off-shoring, immigration, social security, etc. etc. etc. ...
...and getting it WRONG nearly ALL the time.
The reason we know this is that these so-called 'scientists' disagree frequently, and in fact, will be on opposite sides of the fence on major issues. In real science, especially proved theories - for instance gravity, evolution and global warming --that doesn't happen.
Economics is not a pure science, unlike your naive contention, but is actually a combination of 'science' and poltics. And it is the 'latter' part that drives people up a wall, because most U.S. economists tend to agree and support the institutions that employ them. And if the institutions are biased, the 'economists' will be too. This is what we have seen our whole life. The economy is, at bottom, a SOCIAL construct, not some stone in the ground.
-
Wall Street
[Read the article: Economists surprised consumers aren't superhuman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In addition, Dr. Doug, I work at a brokerage. Todays news about Bear Stearns nearly melting down should give pause, and now, let us remember the gigantic stable of economists who made this possible. Those at:
The Federal Reserve.
Wall Street.
The SEC.
The Rating Agencies.
The Republican Party.
The Democratic Party.
So the real issue here is many people no longer have any 'faith.' You got it, 'faith,' 'Faith' in so-called economists, or at least the ones in power.
-
Who's Right?
[Read the article: Economists surprised consumers aren't superhuman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How about this one.
Who's right, Freidman or Galbraith? Who's right in their basic thrust? Or Marx? And of course, there are many shades of each. They were all economists, but they supported different views of economics. How do people approaching a so-called complete 'science' have polar opposite views on the main economic issues of our time? That is not true of actual science normally.
You are a researcher at a public university, interested in 'fees' (not called taxes by you, right? Sure?), laboring away in a tiny microsphere where the science part of the job might be higher than the 'political economy' part of the job. Step back into the land where the rest of us live. PHDs aren't the only ones qualified to challenge the economists - do you agree? It seems you do not. That is what we here in the hoi polloi call the 'expert' theory of rule. One letter writer already had fun with it.
I mentioned the meltdown of Bear Stearns, which is threatening the whole banking structure in the U.S. So tell me about that one, then. What happened? Whey didn't they predict it? Why did so few prominent economists warn us? Why this failure of predictive power, only now becoming apparent to most people and economists on Wall Street?
It is, in fact, looking like a failure on the economic level equal to the invasion of Iraq on the miltary level. And it is not over yet, it seems. Or perhaps it is? You do have an opinion, don't you? Or is that not your speciality?