I tend to believe what economists tell me.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Should I stop doing this?

I'm fairly certain mainstream economists agree on some of the more fundamental issues. Real simple stuff, like free trade is good, our standard of living will likely increase over the next few years, that the economy is slowing getting better, that downsizing and outsourcing is beneficial.

I'm also willing to accept that my impression of a mainstream economics is far off. I'll also accept that mainstream economists are biased themselves and that I should take what they say with a grain of salt.

I'll include a poll. I also selected "Disable smilies in text" because this thread is super serious, harumph harumph.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Fuck I thought I could disables everyone's smilies!

[Darmund]

Yeah, it only works for your own post. I wish you could do it for everyone else's.

Of course you realize you've totally fucked up your own thread now, right? It's going to be all smilies and durr hurr.

[Fenris]

I...I didn't know you could select "Disable smilies in text" for other users.

Can you?

You can't!

That said--there seems to be two basic schools of economics: Us and Them.

If they are on your side ("Us"), then they are good, accurate, fair and true.
If they are on the other side ("Them") then they are scumbags out to destroy the country.

Frankly, what drives me nuts is that the answer is obviously by splitting the difference between them. It's crazy to not cut some spending and lower some taxes when we're in a recession. It's similarly crazy to not increase some spending and increase some taxes when we're in a recession.

For example, cutting capital gains taxes works to boost the economy--it promotes investment. You will never, ever hear side A admit this. Increasing middle and upper bracket income taxes works to increase tax revenue to the government. You will never hear side B admit that.

It makes a ton of sense for the government to "prime the pump" during a recession--hiring people to build roads, getting people back to work so they have funds to spend in the economy, thus spurring sales, thus spurring manufacturing. It also makes a ton of sense in a recession for the government to stop bleeding money to useless Federal departments that don't do much but take money from one state, skim some off and give the rest to another state. And getting rid of silly frivolities like the National Beekeeper's Museum or the American Alpaca Association also makes sense.

If you think of it like a household, if you don't have enough money to pay your bills, it's ok to go deeper into debt to cover medical bills so you can keep working, but not so much to buy a new 68" plasma screen tv.

However, "Us" and "Them" are more like religions nowdays than a science, so the two sides will never, ever, ever get together.

So...no. Don't trust them.

[GIGObuster]

Before the economic meltdown, and my realization that things like health care costs in the USA are a bubble, I would had voted in favor, but now I have to say that you also have to take them with a grain of salt. When you look at documentaries like the Oscar winning "Inside Job" you realize that many economists have huge conflicts of interest that makes them ignore bubbles.

It seems to me that I would take seriously an economist that would include "crazy agents" to their "representative agents" and "heterogeneous agents" in their models.

But, what typical policy maker or businessman would take seriously an economist that would tell a good number of their clients that they are mad?

[u wan buy dvd?]

That's a good point. I sometimes am drawn towards crazy agent type models, which most certainly are not (yet) considered mainstream.

[WednesdayAddams]

While I generally accept the numbers given by legitimate economists who are able to back their figures with research, I will still look for corroboration from other economists just to be sure it's factual. I like Paul Krugman; I think he's brilliant. He's still human, hence he still makes mistakes occasionally. Macro economics is an incredibly involved field that requires a lot of study. If you're going to find someone to trust, at least make sure that person has more integrity and gravitas than this guy.

Also, google 'Starve the Beast.' It isn't just some phantom theory.

Edit: at Gigo.

[u wan buy dvd?]

And I'm just talking about the stuff that mainstream economists would agree on. Guys like Krugman, people on the Council of Economic Advisers, professors at Princeton and MIT. These people generally build on Keynesian theory and would probably agree on something simple like trade but not necessarily something as complicated as the Bush tax cuts.

[Fish]

You want to be considered an economist? It's easy. Take some economics classes. Boom, you're an official economist. That sounds too hard? Get a job at a bank or a brokerage firm and qualify as an economist on the basis of professional experience. That takes too long? Then do some statistics on the economy and get it printed in a local paper with "I'm an economist" written in there somewhere.

There really is no agreed-upon standard for who an economist is, or what his credentials must be. Never, never listen to anybody who calls himself an economist unless you know a) who else calls him that, and b) why they call him that.

• "Next on FOX news, an economist explains why the government should lower taxes for the rich, privatize Medicare, and cut capital gains taxes." Translation: we heard what position our corporate sponsors want us to flog and we found someone willing to bloviate on that subject.
• "Here at Corruption Brothers Brokerage, we have professional economists to analyze the market to help manage your money." Translation: We want to make money, but we want to convey the impression that we want you to make money too.
• "An economics professor at Georgetown University has a new theory." Translation: The guy does this for a living; there's no mention of anything he might be selling.

Economics is called "the dismal science." According to An Incomplete Education that's only half-right; it is dismal. Economists make simplified models and generous assumptions, pretend they can hold all market factors steady and change one thing (waving their hands and using the magic words ceteris paribus). Economics, a science? No: science is repeatable.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

There really is no agreed-upon standard for who an economist is, or what his credentials must be.

I don't think there's a universal standard for who Fox is allowed to call an economist. But just like there's the American Psychological Association, there's an American Economists Association. So if we don't just look at Fox for the economic consensus, but perhaps the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy
We see PhD holding, AEA affiliated, professional economists tend to agree on certain issues.

What might be the reasons we shouldn't trust the consensus of these professional economists?

[Dudley]

Not economists per se, but have you ever noticed how many Certified Financial Planners are broke?

[mswas]

The problem is, you can find an economist who will support just about any position.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

But just like there's the American Psychological Association, there's an American Economists Association.

There's an Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges and an American Chiropractic Association and a Catholic Church but the existence of those organizations doesn't automatically prove that basil cures pancreatic cancer, or a spinal adjustment relieves asthma symptoms, or that God caused the earthquake in Japan. Don't be impressed by groups that hand official accreditations to themselves unless their claims are accurate, useful, and repeatable.

[Fish]

As for you shouldn't agree with a consensus of economists when they tend to agree on things: Wall Street had access to the best economists money could buy and collapsed anyway, making off with trillions in taxpayer dollars and (thus far) facing virtually no criminal charges. Almost no economist was saying, "Jeez, maybe this default credit swap thing is a bad idea." At that point we should be asking ourselves whose side those economists were on.

Consensus does not indicate prudence. The Great Depression was caused in part by consensus (a widespread rise in speculation, a run on the banks). A group of people with similar interests and income may agree a certain course of action is desirable, but it doesn't mean it's the best course.

[Lounsbury]

Insofar as my graduate degree is in economics and finance (and I do real proper business), I find 90% of the naive critiques of economics to be laughable and largely illiterate. That largely holds here.

It is a discipline that is 'soft' without clear objective answers in a lot of areas (for lack of reliable and sufficient data as often as not).

Contra the popular view, among properly trained people there are some clear zones of agreement, but "on the margins" lots of debate.

Originally Posted by mswas

The problem is, you can find an economist who will support just about any position.

Well, that you could say about just about any bloody thing.

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

What might be the reasons we shouldn't trust the consensus of these professional economists?

Ignorance?

It is a fuzzy subject and many of the issues in public debate are in the fuzziest most controversial areas.

Originally Posted by Fish

You want to be considered an economist? It's easy. Take some economics classes. Boom, you're an official economist.

No, mate without a graduate degree in economics you're not going to be seriously taken as an economist.

Get a job at a bank or a brokerage firm and qualify as an economist on the basis of professional experience.

Normally in either of those posts you need at least a masters and usually a PhD to be called "economist" rather than analyst or some such.

Then do some statistics on the economy and get it printed in a local paper with "I'm an economist" written in there somewhere.

Well shite local papers are credulous in almost any area, so I don't know what this says at all.

There really is no agreed-upon standard for who an economist is, or what his credentials must be. Never, never listen to anybody who calls himself an economist unless you know a) who else calls him that, and b) why they call him that.

Fair enough, but in my world if one doesn't have a graduate degree in economics one is going to be laughed at in making the claim.

But that is like being a Historian or Socialogist.

Economics is called "the dismal science." According to An Incomplete Education that's only half-right; it is dismal. Economists make simplified models and generous assumptions, pretend they can hold all market factors steady and change one thing (waving their hands and using the magic words ceteris paribus). Economics, a science? No: science is repeatable.

normally they say human science, which is a bit of a weasel, but no worse than for sociology. Using simplified models is not the problem, the problem is that there needs to be more attention to moving beyond those models now that new data, methods, tools have emerged. The people in behavioural economics are doing so, and will be a long term revolution.

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

And I'm just talking about the stuff that mainstream economists would agree on. Guys like Krugman, people on the Council of Economic Advisers, professors at Princeton and MIT. These people generally build on Keynesian theory and would probably agree on something simple like trade but not necessarily something as complicated as the Bush tax cuts.

Aside from politics, no proper economist thinks the Laffer Curve is an effective description of taxation in the economy.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

While I generally accept the numbers given by legitimate economists who are able to back their figures with research, I will still look for corroboration from other economists just to be sure it's factual. I like Paul Krugman; I think he's brilliant. He's still human, hence he still makes mistakes occasionally. Macro economics is an incredibly involved field that requires a lot of study. If you're going to find someone to trust, at least make sure that person has more integrity and gravitas than this guy.

Also, google 'Starve the Beast.' It isn't just some phantom theory.

Edit: at Gigo.

Krugamn is a trade economist, and very good in that area. Being a trade economist doesn't make him an expert in financial or investment issues, or a number of other things he thinks he is expert in. But he is a good economist within those limiits.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Fish

Wall Street had access to the best economists money could buy and collapsed anyway, making off with trillions in taxpayer dollars and (thus far) facing virtually no criminal charges.

This is pure idiotic bollocks.

Economists are not soothsayers nor risk managers nor operational managers.

Nor are Economists particularly influential inside of I-Banks. Rather the contrary.

Almost no economist was saying, "Jeez, maybe this default credit swap thing is a bad idea."

Insofar as that is not what they are asked to do, of course not.

The Risk Manager is asked to do that. And appropriately so as a CDS is a micro instrument which Economics has very little to say about.

One needs to be a financial technician.

The culpability of economics was rather indirect, in the

However, the calls on CDSs are made by Risk Managers who are CFAs, not economists, and there largely the problem was (i) the Traders have more power than the technicians in making calls, since they generate the $$, (ii) the modelling - done by Quants (not economists, actually, but maths and sciences types) proved to be fucked up, based on too little statistical depth (time depth) and a biased history at that.

At that point we should be asking ourselves whose side those economists were on.

At such point you need to be asking yourself if you know fuck all about what you're whinging on about.

Because I can tell you, it is clear to me you don't.

Consensus does not indicate prudence. The Great Depression was caused in part by consensus (a widespread rise in speculation, a run on the banks). A group of people with similar interests and income may agree a certain course of action is desirable, but it doesn't mean it's the best course.

This has nothing the fuck to do with Economists or macro econ. Bank runs were (and are) mass panics, not intellectual consensus.

[Fish]

The default Lounsbury position: nobody knows anything.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Fish

The default Lounsbury position: nobody knows anything.

No. When someone talks about something that I actually now, and talks nonsense.

Unless you have a substantive rebuttal, it stands that your comment was not about economists, but about Investment Bank fuck ups, and what you identified was not Economists fuck ups, it was I-Bank management fuck ups.

Unless you have some direct experience with Risk Management structures and know who they hire, etc.

Simple as that, mate.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

No, mate without a graduate degree in economics you're not going to be seriously taken as an economist.

Demonstrably false; Ben Stein (for some reason) is taken seriously as an economist, publishing articles on same, and his degree was in law.

This has nothing the fuck to do with Economists or macro econ. Bank runs were (and are) mass panics, not intellectual consensus.

Who said anything about intellectual consensus? Not I. There are many forms of consensus, some more statistically reliable than others. You know as well as I that the herd is not always correct.

As regards risk management and investment, and the specific title for the people upon whom banks rely for investing, I admit you have experience I do not have. However, I will say that the term "economist" is so loose and unregulated that one can masquerade as an "economist" practically at will, no matter what one's job title is. The people whose job it is to manage money and analyze markets — whether you call them economists or something else — are not always right. Even when they are right, they're not necessarily looking out for anybody but themselves.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

Demonstrably false; Ben Stein (for some reason) is taken seriously as an economist, publishing articles on same, and his degree was in law.

When I said "mainstream economist" I didn't for a second mean Ben Stein. Why is it the fault of economists everywhere that Stein would be taken seriously and not the fault of journalists who ask him to comment on shit?

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by Fish

Demonstrably false; Ben Stein (for some reason) is taken seriously as an economist, publishing articles on same, and his degree was in law.

Is he, though? I thought he was a speech writer with a really good knowledge of history and general politics. Economics doesn't even come to mind when I think of Ben Stein.

[Lord Blackmore]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Is he, though? I thought he was a speech writer with a really good knowledge of history and general politics. Economics doesn't even come to mind when I think of Ben Stein.

Whenever I think of Ben Stein, I think of "Bueller, Bueller"

In any case, I've definitely heard Ben Stein called used as an economist before.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Fish

Demonstrably false; Ben Stein (for some reason) is taken seriously as an economist, publishing articles on same, and his degree was in law.

What?

Ben Stein as far as I know is a popular media blabber on INVESTMENT - a complete idiot, but not an economist.

Taken seriously as an economist? Where, what evidence? (I have the impression he is a jabber on TV about investing, which is unqualified to be, which does not in my book qualify as 'taken seriously as an economist.' If he is cited in some proper non-idiot sourcing as an economist, I shall eat my words, but as I understand things this merely confirms to me the confusion of terms).

Unless of course you are talking about the universe of people who can't distinguish between the concepts of Financial Advisor, Investors, and Economists. Different concepts. Rather like going to a dentist for a heart problem. He's a Dr. after all.

Who said anything about intellectual consensus? Not I. There are many forms of consensus, some more statistically reliable than others. You know as well as I that the herd is not always correct.

Yes, indeed. But what the fuck that has to do with the subject of academic consensus escapes. Academic consensus is not statistical and can't be statistical.

As regards risk management and investment, and the specific title for the people upon whom banks rely for investing, I admit you have experience I do not have.

Well there we are. Economists have many sins, excessive abstraction among the classical school, the Random Walk and Perfect Markets among the financial markets theorists (that us practitioners sneer at), but those are strategy / long term.

The sins you attributed are not theirs as such.

However, I will say that the term "economist" is so loose and unregulated that one can masquerade as an "economist" practically at will, no matter what one's job title is.

I grant readily that like ANY SOCIAL SCIENCE that particularly to the general public any cretin can claim to be an economist. And not all economists are created equal relative to training. And further that if one knows fuck all about economics, sadly generally the case in the general public, it is easy to sell any kind of shite. But this is not specific to Economics as such.

The people whose job it is to manage money and analyze markets — whether you call them economists or something else — are not always right. Even when they are right, they're not necessarily looking out for anybody but themselves.

Well.... again they're not the same bloody people. ECONOMISTS ARE NOT MONEY MANAGERS AND VICE VERSA. Period. confusing the ideas, as I noted supra is like confusing dental hygienists, cardiologists, and dentists.

I shall not defend money managers - particularly retail managers.

And as to this "even when they are right, they're not necessarily looking out for anybody but themselves" the ancient phrase Caveat Emptor applies.

Or in short, in the real world, if someone is selling you a product, you must assume that they are looking out for themselves. now the better actors think long term. But effectively finding them is another subject.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Economists have many sins, excessive abstraction among the classical school, the Random Walk and Perfect Markets among the financial markets theorists

Considering economist's many sins of abstraction and assumption, is it reasonable for me, an average rube, to accept something as true that they'd consider common knowledge, like free trade is mutually beneficial for instance?

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Considering economist's many sins of abstraction and assumption, is it reasonable for me, an average rube, to accept something as true that they'd consider common knowledge, like free trade is mutually beneficial for instance?

I did not say that.

As for Free Trade, here we get to consensus. Leaving aside wild-eyed lunatics and quaint Marxists, all serious economists - even those of a Left persuasion like Krugman - agree on the fundamental positives in free trade.

Abstraction does not enter into that.

Rather what becomes problematic is how one gets there, and specific policy implementations.

It is worth noting that unlike Free Trade, the efficient markets hypothesis did not have, outside the financial markets community, wide consensus. Even there, it has been controversial.

[Jaglavak]

We should clearly distinguish between economists describing how the machine is connected (which they are pretty good at) versus economists predicting what path the machine will take (which has a much more spotty track record). An economy is like a jungle in more ways than one. You can catalog all the Tootoo birds in the Umptysquat river valley and generally describe their life cycle. But it's a whole different thing to predict the Tootoo bird population in ten years. That is an emergent property subject to major fluctuations from subtle causes.

Also, as long as politicians control the central banks, the money supply and with it the economy will always be cynically manipulated for political gain. But few authors seem to make allowances for a realistic type and quantity of evil.

Economists know a lot of stuff, but they are not technical specialists. From what I've seen, not enough of them consult the technical specialists, which leads to some rather breezy assumptions about resource availability and/or substitution.

Predictions about the economy require a whole raft of input assumptions. Even with teams of folks to follow all the news, at some point you have to guess at what will happen with things like wars and earthquakes. After enough of those guesses the conclusions will be provisional most of the time, even if the models are mostly correct.

These are the main reasons I don't believe the conclusions of the mainstream economists one bit. But there is still much to learn from them.

Finally, I find there is often a big difference between what is written and what is comprehended. Once you get past the basics, your average schmoe can't follow the arguments. So he skips to the last paragraph where the author wraps up his point and that's what he remembers. Except he probably only caught part of it, and a week later he'll probably remember that part wrong too.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Well, that you could say about just about any bloody thing.

Sounds like a good reason not to blindly trust experts in any field no?

But with economics, the stakes to support one's pet economic theory because one's partisan political fortunes rest upon it, are high.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We should clearly distinguish between economists describing how the machine is connected (which they are pretty good at) versus economists predicting what path the machine will take (which has a much more spotty track record).

I should emphasize that I don't automatically look to economists to tell me what to think about unemployment ten years from now or how to feel about a certain policy. Partly because I don't think economists themselves could reach agreements about such things.

I'm only talking about the things economists generally believe to be true, like how you say "the machine is connected". I'm trusting that economists are unbiased when they say foreign competition, specialization, and technology are economically efficacious.

Does anyone think economists are serving biased ends when they generally agree that the most fundamental theory is true?

Originally Posted by mswas

But with economics, the stakes to support one's pet economic theory because one's partisan political fortunes rest upon it, are high.

But that's a problem of the politicians and not the economists, right? I don't come close to blindly accepting what a politician has to say about the economy.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

But that's a problem of the politicians and not the economists, right? I don't come close to blindly accepting what a politician has to say about the economy.

My point is politicians on both sides have economists in their pocket. You cannot say you simply accept what they say because they have different views that sometimes conflict with the views of others, and they receive support from people who have a political economic agenda.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by mswas

My point is politicians on both sides have economists in their pocket. You cannot say you simply accept what they say because they have different views that sometimes conflict with the views of others, and they receive support from people who have a political economic agenda.

If it's part of this general consensus that I'm willing to go along with, the economist on the other side is going to be saying it too.

[Glazer]

Economies are complex emergent systems. Like the weather. They are controlled by independent agents acting on limited knowledge and with selfish motives. They are driven by feedback and limited communications between agents. And suffer from the butterfly effect.

Economist are like meteorologist is that no matter how much education you have or how detailed your models are you can't accurately predict very far into the future.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Fish

The default Lounsbury position: nobody knows anything.

Since this is obviously a stupid generalization (as opposed to the intelligent generalization I'm about to make) please allow me to correct you on this point: The Lounsbury default position is that not only does no one else know anything about anything, because he knows everything about everything it is incumbent upon him to argue in the most offensive and belittling manner possible. This is supposed to (1) enhance his credibility and (2) deter people from disagreeing with him.

Aaaaand, because I have a master's degree in rhetoric from a third-rate public university, every argument I make is ipso facto correct and unarguable.

ETA:

&ETA: I forgot to make my main point: As usual, mswas nailed it in his first post.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Fish

Demonstrably false; Ben Stein (for some reason) is taken seriously as an economist, publishing articles on same, and his degree was in law.

Ben Stein is a creationist. I read one of his books. If he told me the sun was going to rise tomorrow, I'd check.

[Jaglavak]

And he hustles Visine to stoners.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by F'ing New Guy

Economies are complex emergent systems. Like the weather. They are controlled by independent agents acting on limited knowledge and with selfish motives. They are driven by feedback and limited communications between agents. And suffer from the butterfly effect.

Economist are like meteorologist is that no matter how much education you have or how detailed your models are you can't accurately predict very far into the future.

Quite, spot on.

Originally Posted by mswas

Sounds like a good reason not to blindly trust experts in any field no?

But with economics, the stakes to support one's pet economic theory because one's partisan political fortunes rest upon it, are high.

I don't think there was any argument made to blindly trust experts.

At the same time naive, unfounded conspiracy mongering comes out of blanket distrust.

As the other points properly differentiate, descriptive and prescriptive / future looking economics are not the same thing. Expecting predictions on relatively precise series of actions to work out is magical thinking in the end, although perhaps unavoidable.

It is also clear that very few people really even have an understanding of first principles.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We should clearly distinguish between economists describing how the machine is connected (which they are pretty good at) versus economists predicting what path the machine will take (which has a much more spotty track record). An economy is like a jungle in more ways than one. You can catalog all the Tootoo birds in the Umptysquat river valley and generally describe their life cycle. But it's a whole different thing to predict the Tootoo bird population in ten years. That is an emergent property subject to major fluctuations from subtle causes.

Also, as long as politicians control the central banks, the money supply and with it the economy will always be cynically manipulated for political gain. But few authors seem to make allowances for a realistic type and quantity of evil.

Although I entirely agree with the first paragraph, the second is silly. Unless one substitutes "human beings" for politicians.

For the most part, central banks are fairly well insulated from direct political manipulation in the developed world and ever more so in the developing world. Central Banks largely operate at about as a disinterested / technocratic level as possible overall.

Of course when you have human beings rather than abstractions in operation, emotion, interests come into play.

Economists know a lot of stuff, but they are not technical specialists. From what I've seen, not enough of them consult the technical specialists, which leads to some rather breezy assumptions about resource availability and/or substitution.

There is a disconnect between the Micro focused operators and the Macro operators. Only recently have more complex models become possible, and the financial crisis - which in part comes off of naive use of some abstract modelling that the Quants (a diverse body of people in the I-Banks and Hedgies, but largely maths and sciences people, not economists) developed off of that.

There is, in short, not enough known to marry up some levels of micro economic data (which is noisy, dated and uncertain) with macro aggregates. Although the behavioural school is working on interesting stuff.

Finally, I find there is often a big difference between what is written and what is comprehended. Once you get past the basics, your average schmoe can't follow the arguments. So he skips to the last paragraph where the author wraps up his point and that's what he remembers. Except he probably only caught part of it, and a week later he'll probably remember that part wrong too.

this too is a problem, the lack of understanding of first principles, as well as people who label non-economists as economists, because the person opines on Investment or Financing.

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

Since this is obviously a stupid generalization (as opposed to the intelligent generalization I'm about to make) please allow me to correct you on this point: The Lounsbury default position is that not only does no one else know anything about anything, because he knows everything about everything it is incumbent upon him to argue in the most offensive and belittling manner possible. This is supposed to (1) enhance his credibility and (2) deter people from disagreeing with him.

My you are so very tender. I don't need credibility enhancement, this is a fucking little message board. The Gweeb is an amusement centre.

Unlike you, I keep my mouth shut about things I don't genuinely know much about.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

I don't think there was any argument made to blindly trust experts.

I blindly trust to the experts to explain very basic principles without bias. For example, I trust that microeconomics 101 classes aren't designed to pump some agenda.

As far as I'm aware, that's pretty much the entire scope of any real economic consensus- basic 101 principles.

[Lounsbury]

Mmmm I don't count that as blind trust.

Presumably a well taught economics curriculum gives one the proper tools to have at least some judgement on the facts and data.

Blind trust I would say is when one gives credence without understanding.

Sometimes that is necessary - I am afraid I have a blind trust of what the people in advanced molecular genetics tell me about certain things, as I haven't the education to properly judge. But that is bounded by a knowledge they are cross-checked.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Well, it's at least partially blind. I'm trusting that the basics according to Marx aren't being included in micro 101 because neoclassical economics is a more accurate description. I haven't done the work myself, but I assume the bigwig economists have given Marxism the proper academic treatment to dismiss it from 101.

Likewise, I also didn't learn any Austrian economics in macro 101. I sort of gotta trust it's because the basics as according to Keynes are more accurate.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Well, it's at least partially blind. I'm trusting that the basics according to Marx aren't being included in micro 101 because neoclassical economics is a more accurate description. I haven't done the work myself, but I assume the bigwig economists have given Marxism the proper academic treatment to dismiss it from 101.

Likewise, I also didn't learn any Austrian economics in macro 101. I sort of gotta trust it's because the basics as according to Keynes are more accurate.

Hmmmm. I guess I can see what you are saying. I might not call that blind, but at 101 overview level, I suppose perhaps it is. (Austrian is also dismissed by Non Keynesians in the neo classical tradition, it's just not very good).

[mswas]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Well, it's at least partially blind. I'm trusting that the basics according to Marx aren't being included in micro 101 because neoclassical economics is a more accurate description. I haven't done the work myself, but I assume the bigwig economists have given Marxism the proper academic treatment to dismiss it from 101.

Likewise, I also didn't learn any Austrian economics in macro 101. I sort of gotta trust it's because the basics as according to Keynes are more accurate.

Then you don't really trust what economists tell you. You have criteria for judging which economists you trust and which you dismiss based on prior education.

There is a reason it's called the dismal science.

I tend to believe what Sweet Scientists tell me.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Although I entirely agree with the first paragraph, the second is silly. Unless one substitutes "human beings" for politicians.

Are you fucking kidding? Can you say, quantitative easing? The US decision to fully bail out the central banks by buying worthless securities at 100% face value was absolutely a political decision, it indisputably affected monetary policy, and there's no question it is having a strong effect on the economy.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by mswas

I tend to believe what Sweet Scientists tell me.

You listen to boxers?

[Ganryu Kojiro]

You wanna piss a boxer off?

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by mswas

Then you don't really trust what economists tell you. You have criteria for judging which economists you trust and which you dismiss based on prior education.

There is a reason it's called the dismal science.

I tend to believe what Sweet Scientists tell me.

I suppose you're right. I figured it was implied by how many times I said "mainstream" in the OP that I don't trust what fringe economists generally consider to be true. I never said I trust all economists- just what the mainstream ones agree upon, and that the mainstream is mainstream because they are most accurate.

And isn't it called the dismal science because of Malthus?

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Are you fucking kidding?

No, not at all

Can you say, quantitative easing?

Yes, I can.

I can also precisely understand the cold stone solid rationale in a liquidity constrained environment under deep deflationary pressure, and with nominal interests rates at near zero.

You, it would seem, have a political problem with it. Rendering your critique, well, ironic at best.

The US decision to fully bail out the central banks by buying worthless securities at 100% face value was absolutely a political decision, it indisputably affected monetary policy, and there's no question it is having a strong effect on the economy.

The above is entirely incoherent. Please try to restate in a fashion that makes some sense.

In any case, if you refer to commercial bank rescues, if one is not under taking some hand-waving innumerate populist raging, then (i) one must differentiate from US Treasury operations and Central Bank operations (which you seem to be confusing), (ii) the said securities are not worthless.

As for strong effect on the economy, well yes. One avoided a Great Depression part II.

Queer one thinks that a bad thing.

[THespos]

I am extremely skeptical of just about anything said by anybody who claims to be an economist. All manners of positions regarding what can happen to the economy can be supported by data if you let an economist cherrypick what he/she chooses to focus on. Add to this the notion that economists overwhelmingly have some personal and/or business stake in whatever point of view that they're trying to advance, and you've got yourself a recipe for being taken to the cleaners.

So yes, OP, if you're asking me, I'd say you ought not to generally believe what most economists tell you. This is nothing more than my mere opinion.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I suppose you're right. I figured it was implied by how many times I said "mainstream" in the OP that I don't trust what fringe economists generally consider to be true. I never said I trust all economists- just what the mainstream ones agree upon, and that the mainstream is mainstream because they are most accurate.

And isn't it called the dismal science because of Malthus?

Fringe/Mainstream is not based on merit, but how widespread adoption of the view is. Yesterdays mainstream theory could be tomorrows relic of a barbaric past. Todays fringe idea could be tomorrows mainstream.

I thought economics was the dismal science because of the obvious problems related to experimental verification. But if someone has some info of how it got that name, it would be an interesting topic.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by mswas

Fringe/Mainstream is not based on merit, but how widespread adoption of the view is.

You got me. I'm totally assuming the most popular brand of economics amongst PhD holding, professional economists, PhDs who work at MIT, Harvard and Princeton, the kind that are on the presidents Council of
Economic Advisers, the brand exclusively taught in undergrad econ curriculum the world over, got to be that way because it has the most academic merit.

This is an assumption on my part and nothing else

[mswas]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

You got me. I'm totally assuming the most popular brand of economics amongst PhD holding, professional economists, PhDs who work at MIT, Harvard and Princeton, the kind that are on the presidents Council of
Economic Advisers, the brand exclusively taught in undergrad econ curriculum the world over, got to be that way because it has the most academic merit.

This is an assumption on my part and nothing else

I knew what you meant.

The funny thing about science is we are constantly finding out that the way we thought things worked is not necessarily so.

Bottom line, IMO anyway is that one shouldn't really accept someones opinion unless one has the knowledge to understand it themselves. If you do, then you aren't really just accepting what they say. If you don't them it doesn't matter what you think about the subject anyway. Whether erroneous or correct, simply accepting what an economist tells you has little bearing on your life or on the topic of economics.

Like any academic field, for every tenured professor there is another tenured professor who thinks he's an idiot.

[Ganryu Kojiro]

I respect the thought, but go too far down that road and you end up unable to take medicine or use technology. Fact is, I can't really track down and thoroughly research every facet of everything that might affect me. I'm qualified to evaluate things in my degree, but I'd be lost reading a medical journal, for example.

Now, I have the capacity to understand, just not enough time to invest in every topic. Everyone makes those trade-offs, so it seems that everyone has to take someones word on things. Regrettable, but inevitable.

As for the mainstream being simply more popular, that's true. But there's no workaround. All I can do is be open to new information, being aware that the consensus changes.