Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by taffer on Sunday March 31, 2019 @02:29PM
(#19537276)
And that is exactly what so called climate sceptics say about climate science or what antivaxxers say about conventional medicine.
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by atq2119 on Sunday March 31, 2019 @02:48PM
(#19537433)
You can take a look at track records of predictions and policy interventions to compare those fields. Vaccine did in fact significantly reduce or even eradicate some diseases. The track record of predictions out of economics is a lot spottier.
Re:Why Are Economists Giving Piketty the Cold Shoulder? (2017)
by taffer on Sunday March 31, 2019 @03:27PM
(#19537748)
Can biologists or paleontologists forecast evolution? Can meteorologists forecast the weather in four months?
> Vaccine did in fact significantly reduce or even eradicate some diseases. The track record of predictions out of economics is a lot spottier.
The same applies to the track record of seismologists. Moreover, forecasting is a very, very small field of economics.
The results are predictably grim for everyone who isn't a 0.1%er - sometimes fatally so.
There's a side-field of purely academic economics which includes heterodox ideas like MMT, but they - currently - have almost zero chance of having an influence on government policy.
I'm always bemused that psychics are regularly attacked by sceptics for being dangerous and fraudulent scammers who act in bad faith.
On the evidence, policy economists are vastly more dangerous.
A bad faith psychic might bankrupt a handful of people. Bad faith economists can bankrupt entire countries and/or force entire generations into debt - but sceptics seem to swallow what they have to sell with no rational oversight, and sometimes with support and approval.