• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

The Identity Of The False Religion Behind The Mask Of Economic "Science"


D

Dylan2010

this article struck a chord, from the Zerohedge blog site , dont know who he is but sums up the sense of fustration many have with the establisment doctrines we all may have had to endure in college and from the media in relation to the on going economic crises.



Gonzalo Lira On The Identity Of The False Religion Behind The Mask Of Economic "Science" | zero hedge


“Our God Is Money”: Economics Isn’t a Dismal Science—It’s an Ersatz Religion

“Are you an Austrian?” I was asked recently, in the polite tones reserved for asking if I were, say, Jewish or Muslim or Christian.

I’d been asked the question while discussing macro-economic policy in the United States—

—actually, “discussing” doesn’t quite capture what I’d been doing:

I’d been lambasting the Neo-Keynesian drivel of spend!-spend!-spend!, which I deplore—“They’re like drunk sailors with the national credit-card—trawling for good blow and cheap whores in a Tijuana back alley!”—

—while at the same time ridiculing the Monetarists’ obsession with money supply—“Money-supply fetishists are just like foot fetishists—only twice as creepy, and only half as reasonable!”—

—all the while insisting that in this Global Depression, savings had to be the priority—austerity the only policy prescription that made any kind of sense.

“Are you an Austrian?” came the question.

“I'm an agnostic,” I answered flippantly—but then instantly realized that my answer went to the heart of the problem with economics.

It’s no great insight to say that economics—the so-called “dismal science”—has had a dismal track-record in terms of predicting macro-economic events over the last forty-odd years.

And as for the last couple of years? Sheesh—a monkey throwing darts would have done a better job of predicting how the macro-economic picture would play out.

Very few people have been asking why this is so. Very few people have been asking why economics has failed so spectacularly at predicting the Global Financial Crisis, and very few people have asked why economics cannot seem to solve the Global Depression we are currently experiencing.

This is an important question—especially if we are collectively putting so much of our faith in economists and their dismal science, as the sherpas who will lead us out of this current mess that we’re in, and back up to the mountain top.

First of all, what is economics?

The dictionary definition is, economics concerns itself with the study of the production, consumption and transfer of wealth—everything from accounting to finance to macro-economics.

Now, I have no truck with micro-economics, generally speaking; accounting and finance. All good to me, within certain limitations. When I speak here of economics, I’m referring to macro-economics.

What does economics do, as a discipline?

The answer is obvious: Economics tries to predict the future.

Lots of sciences try to predict the future—and they succeed, too, without much controversy.

For instance, physics and chemistry claim that, if gasoline is mixed with air inside an enclosed cylinder, and then ignited, the force will drive a piston which will drive a crankshaft which will drive a car.

Lo and behold, several hundred million cars drive around the planet, amply fulfilling physics’ and chemistry’s predictions. Score for them.

But what about economics?

Well, economics claims it is a science—yet for all its “scientific” models, economics found itself in 2007 with its hands up against the wall and its collective pants down around its ankles, when it utterly failed to predict the Global Financial Crisis, and the subsequent Global Depression.

Actually, there were a number of non-economists whose predictions were far more accurate than any paid economists’. But all those eccy Ph.D.’s with all the academic trimmings? They got the big ol’ raspberry, when the Global Financial Crisis hit.

In fact, economics definitively showed itself to be a failed science much earlier: Back in 1998, the spectacular failure of Long Term Capital Management showed them up to be fools.

LTCM—run by legendary trader John Meriwether—was a hedge-fund that used “scientific” trading methods developed by Myron Scholes, Robert Merton and Fischer Black, who invented options pricing. In fact, Scholes and Merton won the Nobel Prize in economics for their work—in fact, Scholes and Merton worked at LTCM, applying their “scientific” methods to LTCM’s trading strategies.

Talk about the best and the brightest! Meriwether opened his shop in 1994 with these two Big Brains running the engine room, along with a host of other Big-Brains-in-Training—and what happened?

In less than four years, Long Term Capital Management blew up. A “once in a billion years event” happened in less than four years—which means that either LTCM was the unluckiest outfit in the world . . . or maybe economics and finance isn’t a science.

Why be coy: Economics isn’t a science—it never has been. It can’t be—because its subject matter is people: And people aren’t predictable.

Circumstances being equal, water will freeze at 0°C, and will boil at 100°C—every time, time after time, no matter what.

But people? You can never predict when they’ll freeze you out, or boil over in rage.

That hasn’t stopped economics from pretending to be a science. That’s why the discipline has spent the last 60 years importing math and physics wholesale: So as to create a veneer of scientific certainty and respectability.

So if economics isn’t a science, then what is it?

Well: What human activity pretends to higher knowledge of a super-human power that controls human lives and destinies? What human enterprise tries to convince other human beings that they—and only they—know what will happen next? What group of human beings claim that their secret knowledge uniquely allows them to know what will happen—and so therefore, you must listen to all that they say, and never ever question their commands, decrees or pronouncements, no matter how foolish?

Easy: Priests. Priests in the service of a religion.

Ancient Mayan priests used their knowledge of the stars and the planets to not merely predict the future—they used that knowledge to control the populace, and therefore get their own way.

That is exactly what economics has been doing, as of late: Claiming knowledge of the future, and claiming unique access to a higher truth—unavailable to the ordinary man and woman—so as to get the populace to do their bidding.

Just like religions, economics uses esoteric knowledge and language to discriminate between its acolytes and the unlearnéd, the elect and the unwashed.

Just like religions, economics builds sophisticated-seeming theoretical structures, that seem to explain reality.

They don’t, of course: The mathematical models economist spend all their time building are simply not up to the task of faithfully reproducing the macro-economic reality, and thereby predicting it.

Why? Because there are so many variables that human invention simply cannot cover them all. Human invention cannot predict all the moves in a game of chess—and chess only has six classes of pieces moving on a mere 64 squares.

Imagine something like a world’s economy: How many classes of pieces? How many squares? How many moves? How many variables?

Heavens!

Yet economics—ridiculously—claims it has models which can predict the future—but what’s even more ridiculous, there are many who believe them.

Just like all successful religions, economics is very good at convincing people that it is the One True Path to Wisdom—and not just unsophisticated or uneducated people: Actually, as all good con-men know, the easiest people to fool are sophisticated, intelligent, educated people. It’s precisely their sophistication, intelligence and education which makes them arrogant, makes them think they can’t be fooled: They think they’re too smart to be fooled.

So of course, they’re fooled most of all.

Just like all religions, economics is used to explain away the actions of its more powerful adherents, and to protect the interests of its most powerful patrons.

What did economists and the other clergy of economics claim, in the Fall of 2008? “If we don’t save the banks, we are all doomed!!!”

That was of course not true: If the banks had not been bailed out, they would have gone into bankruptcy, the stock holders would have been wiped out, the bond holders would have gotten a haircut (or a buzzcut, rather)—but life would have gone on.

In fact, the financial sector today would be healthier, if the Too Big To Fail banks had been allowed to fail, and then restructured along Sweden ‘92 lines.

But not one economist in any position of influence advocated the bankruptcy and restructuring of the Too Big To Fail banks. Some actually advocated a “hold your nose and get it over with” approach to the TBTF banks—

—which is unsurprising: Establishment religions are not in place to change a society, but to maintain a society. Establishment religions benefit those in power by maintaining the status quo—their job is to make sure the populace never questions the status quo, no matter how wide the gap between the stated principles on the one hand, and what is actually done on the other.

The fact that the TBTF banks were not allowed to fail—and instead were bailed out to the detriment of the economy as a whole, but to the benefit of a small, well-positioned minority—goes to show what the establishment religion of economics is used for: To shore up the interests of those in power, to the detriment of the society as a whole.

Not only that, the Religion of Economics is used to explain away blatantly hypocritical measures as part of The Grand Design.

“It’s a bad solution, but what are we gonna do? Let the banks fail? That will bring about a market collapse! The end of the free market! So we gotta hold our noses and get it over with.”: How many, many times did we all hear economists say this, about saving the TBTF banks? That it was systemically necessary to save the banks.

Are those the words of someone who truly believes in the “creative destruction” that is supposed to be such an integral part of the free markets?

No: They’re the words of a priest of the establishment religion, protecting the interests of his masters.

Just like all powerful religions, economics has different sects and denominations.

Marxism used to be a creditable example: It was one more cult in the menagerie of economics. But this particular sect was discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The gross and blatant failure of Marxism made it impossible to argue that it was a viable macro-economic policy option—so its fiercest followers were driven underground. (But they’re still out there, by the way: Like Gnostic Christians, waiting for their chance to come back out.)

Marxism is an obvious example of economics-as-religion—but I would argue that all schools of macro-economic thinking are no different from Marxism. The reason is because, like Marxism, all the schools of macro-economic thinking come at their subject from an a priori perspective.

Thus, Austrians are no different from Keynesians, or Neo-Keynesians, or Monetarists, or Modern Monetary Theorists, and these all have absolutely no difference from Marxism: They all come from theoretically arrived at principles, which are then applied to the empirical data. If the data does not fit the theory, then the data is dismissed, and discounted as not germane to the problem at hand.

This dismissal is where the various schools of economic thought get in trouble: That which they dismiss is usually the brick wall they find themselves crashing into.

Neo-Keynesians are arguing spend!-spend!-spend! on stimulus and whatnot, up to and including war as a possible solution to the fall in GDP. The more insane among this crowd, like Paul Krugman, argue that the Obama stimulus package was not enough—it had to be bigger.

Neo-Keynesians don’t realize that no stimulus will ever be big enough—but if they have their druthers, they’ll bankrupt a nation.

Monetarists, like Ben Bernanke and his Lollipop Gang at the Federal Reserve, argue that increasing the money supply will create inflation—which will mean the economy is getting back on track.

Monetarists don’t realize that they’re committing several logical flaws, principal among them being the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, with regards to inflation. If they have their druthers, they’ll drive the nation into hyperinflation.

Austrians argue that the government should cut spending and raise taxes, so as to balance the budget—and magically, the economy will improve, with no loss of GDP.

Austrians are smoking something—and whatever it is, it’s powerful. So I want some.

Just like all religions, the various sects and denominations confer membership to its believers. They invite you to belong.

Notice how economists of a particular school rarely question the fundamental orthodoxies of their sect. Sure, little spats here and there over minor, peripheral issues within their denomination. But about the big pillars of their order? Nary a quibble, nary a peep, nary a doubt.

In fact, debate within the various churches is so small-bore and trivial, that you quickly realize that the quibbles aren’t about economics: The quibbles are jockeying for position within the school of economic thought. Like peacocks, showing off their useless plummage? Like that.

The one thing all the sects of the Religion of Economics all agree upon is growth: All agree that an economy must grow every year—year after year—no excuses—no matter what.

This is where economics fails most of all.

Of course, perpetual growth is ridiculous: Nothing can grow every year without fail. Nothing should be forced to grow year after year. Trees need to be pruned, growth consolidated.

Nevertheless, the current leadership of the American, European and Asian economies are all under the delusion of the same orthodoxy—growth!-growth!-growth!

The American economic leadership in particular is a slave to this economic orthodoxy. But as I argued in The Short-Sightedness You Get From Staring At A Single Number, deliberately and systematically turning all your macro-economic efforts towards inflating the Gross Domestic Product inevitably leads to distortions in the overall economy.

Growth, in and of itself, is not a metric of anything—and it can easily be perverted. Much of the debt accrued by the U.S. Federal government over the last 30 years—and the last ten in particular—was used to goose the economy to levels of growth that were unsustainable, and which have led to the situation we currently find ourselves in.

And what is the situation we currently find ourselves in?

The United States government and the American people spend more money than they bring in. They have been doing this for going on 40 years—and now the bill has finally come due.

That’s America’s problem—it’s really not more complicated than that.

My solution to this problem? “Cut spending and raise taxes, so as to balance the budget. With a balanced budget, begin building a solid economy on a solid economic foundation.”

This apparently makes me an Austrian—Monetarists and Neo-Keynesians dismiss me, of course. They assume that, like all Austrians, I believe that cutting spending, raising taxes and closing the budget deficit will magically spur growth in GDP.

Actually, I don’t.

See, I’m not an Austrian. Not only that, I do not commune at the church of economics. Call me a son-of-a-bitch if you must, but don’t ever call me an economist.

Rather, I’m a pragmatist: At this time, the best thing to do in order to maintain long-term social stability is to cut spending, raise taxes, close the budget deficit, and have negative growth for three or four years.

In other words, stop trying to avoid the Global Depression, and fully dive into it. Avoid Japan’s fate of Lost Decades. Let the markets really do their creative destruction. Let the debt overhang be wiped out via bankruptcies. Let the chips fall where they may—let the whole unstable house of cards crash to the ground—just get it over with, once and for all.

Of course, this will never happen. The orthodoxies of economics won’t allow it.

So instead, we’re going to get a combination of Neo-Keynesian and Monetarist solutions, to the problem the United States has.

This will bring hyperinflation by December 2011; severe social disruption starting in Q3 of 2011 and accelerating through Q4, before really exploding in Q2 of 2012; the dissolution of the European Union by December of 2012; and very likely—insane as it might now sound—a de facto dictatorship in the United States.

But hey, I’m probably wrong. After all, I’m a heretic, in the eyes of this particular religion. In fact, I hear Brad DeLong wants to burn me at the stake.
 


Sensible Head

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
905
That was a very interesting read, the analogies made me laugh :lol:
 
D

Dylan2010

thanks lads, I thought I was going to get a hail of bullets ;-) I read another comment the other day talking about Krugman (Keynsian)and Greg Mankiw (monetarist) , the opinion was that they are always wrong except when they are disagreeing with each other, I lolled
 

ManfredJudge

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
3,539
LTCM used data for 3 years to show correlation between the price of bonds that they were dealing with. They would sell 30 year bonds (on the run ie most recently issued) because people would pay a premium for them and buy off the run (opposite of on the runs) bonds because they were underpriced. Had they used 5 years data they would have seen that the maxim "The market can remain irrational longer than you can be solvent " held true.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,528
What a ************************************g rubbish article.

Where to start - nearly every assertion made in that article is for the birds! To point out a couple - the problem has not been with economic science itself... the problem has been with how economic science has been institutionalised, and thus certain opinions, certain analyses, certain viewpoints etc, have been submerged by these institutional forces.

To assert that economic science is about predicting the future is trite. - It is normally understood to be the systematic and disciplined effort to understand economic phenomena, beyond the range of the mental habits and factual knowledge of everyday life. So, you might think of all the research workers or scientists or scholars who engage in the task of improving upon the existing stock of facts and methods and who, in the process of doing so, acquires a command of both, that differentiates them from the 'layman'.

- The author of this article has not differentiated himself from the 'layman'. More to the point, he is (a) a dilettante in economic science (b) a shill for certain vested interests who want to promote a certain view to further those interests (c) a hack journalist.
 

Tombo

1
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,306
snip rant
Most of that is a straw man argument. For example

  • Economics is claimed to be a social science.
  • Economists, or more accurately economotricians make no strong claims to the predictive capability of various models. Quite the contrary.
  • Economics does not make any normative claim about "growth". Most economists would agree though that the literature describes how income per capita, or "growth" as ou put it, is a naturally occuring phenomenon rising from a combination of technical progress and capital accumulation that tends to occur in societies without any coercion.

Go study some economics. You will be fascinated to find out how little you know about it.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
Great article, thanks for posting a chara. Yes, as Marx pointed out, Commodity Fetishism is a primitive religion that believes in inanimate objects having magical powers, and demands human sacrifice to it god, i.e. Capital.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
Economics, as opposed to Political Economy, is a particularly dishonest discourse, as it forecloses discussion of the social relations which give rise to the phenomena it studies. Marx said that too.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,528
Economics, as opposed to Political Economy, is a particularly dishonest discourse, as it forecloses discussion of the social relations which give rise to the phenomena it studies. Marx said that too.
I don't know where you got that idea.

A good example is Adam Smith's 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' - which he wrote as a precursor to 'Wealth of Nations' and his theories revolving around the invisible hand. It's worth reading - Smith thought deeply about social affections and social relations. He always said Wealth of Nations should not be read alone, but along with this book (I agree many ignored this advice and just assumed man to be a covetous machine because their brains were too simple to get deeper into the matter).

You might have a point that in recent times, there has been a tendency towards econometrics and mathematical techniques, largely nurtured by the nobel prize being awarded to this type of work.

But it has always been an important part of economic science - along with the statistical element, and the historical element and others that aid understanding of economic phenomena.

For example, our own Brian Lucey is currently puuting a course together to teach in TCD about behavioural and psychological aspects of economic phenomena.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
I don't know where you got that idea.

A good example is Adam Smith's 'Theory of Moral Sentiments' - which he wrote as a precursor to 'Wealth of Nations' and his theories revolving around the invisible hand. It's worth reading - Smith thought deeply about social affections and social relations. He always said Wealth of Nations should not be read alone, but along with this book (I agree many ignored this advice and just assumed man to be a covetous machine because their brains were too simple to get deeper into the matter).

You might have a point that in recent times, there has been a tendency towards econometrics and mathematical techniques, largely nurtured by the nobel prize being awarded to this type of work.

But it has always been an important part of economic science - along with the statistical element, and the historical element and others that aid understanding of economic phenomena.

For example, our own Brian Lucey is currently puuting a course together to teach in TCD about behavioural and psychological aspects of economic phenomena.
Well, the "invisible hand" is a reification and a mystification of social relations. These relations do indeed appear invisible to anyone who doesnt open their eyes and look around them.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
For example, our own Brian Lucey is currently puuting a course together to teach in TCD about behavioural and psychological aspects of economic phenomena.
This kind of behavioural approach is the greatest mystification of all. I wrote the following in anthother thread:

Here is a chart which proposes to use statistics to predict future support for gay marriage. Im not picking on gay marriage, for the most part I support gay marriage, it was simply the first thing that came up when I googled statistical prediction.

Future Trends for Same-Sex Marriage Support? - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

There is nothing unusual about this chart at all. We see them constantly. Indeed, what would the media have to fill their pages with these days at all, if it were not for statistics. More usually, the charts we are exposed to tell us how the "average consumer" thinks. The fact that this "average consumer" doesnt actually exist, is not dwelt on.

But, lets take an allegorical case, so that we can more clearly see what is going on here. Say, for example, I have ten monkeys, and I train them to act as cats. Then, I leave them running around my front garden purring happily away as they eat their Kitty Cat. Then along comes a scientist, and begins to make observations. He notices that monkeys have certain characteristics in common with cats, e.g. purring and eating Kitty Kat. He make a statistical analysis, and shows that nine out of ten monkeys prefer Kitty Kat, and wins the Nobel prize for his efforts.

Well, is it not much the same when scientists analyse the group behaviour of human beings by the method of statistical analysis? The Capitalist system has trained \ brainwashed us from birth to behave in a certain way, and then statisticians come along and notice that we behave like our trained monkeys above. Like our Nobel winner above, they never ask about the training, or who did it, or why - or even that it happened.

And, of course, to cap it all, next time I am training my monkeys, and one of them is foolish enough to ask for a banana, I will show him the Nobel winning "proof" that monkeys prefer Kitty Kat. If that monkey is anythng like most of us humans, he will immediately, on being confronted with such scientific "proof" realise that he really does prefer Kitty Kat.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,528
Well, the "invisible hand" is a reification and a mystification of social relations. These relations do indeed appear invisible to anyone who doesnt open their eyes and look around them.
Indeed. Smith was much misunderstood I think. As often happens, his ideas were seized upon in a way that did not do them justice.

His idea was that we might act in a deeper appreciation of the social affections and social relations, or as you put it, open their eyes and look around them. If this was done, the 'invisible hand' would work in kind.

But the people who got a hold of his idea instead perpetuated the reality and set up where people were constrained to acting in a shallow, non-human way ie. as a covetous machine... and not surprisingly, the 'invisible hand' worked in kind and we reaped what we sowed.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
Indeed. Smith was much misunderstood I think. As often happens, his ideas were seized upon in a way that did not do them justice.

His idea was that we might act in a deeper appreciation of the social affections and social relations, or as you put it, open their eyes and look around them. If this was done, the 'invisible hand' would work in kind.

But the people who got a hold of his idea instead perpetuated the reality and set up where people were constrained to acting in a shallow, non-human way ie. as a covetous machine... and not surprisingly, the 'invisible hand' worked in kind and we reaped what we sowed.
Yes, of course Smith is greatly more complex and subtle than most of his latterday so called followers would be able to appreciate. The same can be said of Marx, of course. But, I really dont think the concept of "the invisible hand" is useful. There really is no such thing. All events in the markets have specific causes, that are in no way invisible in an objective sense. Though I accept that they may wall be invisible to most people at any given time.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,528
This kind of behavioural approach is the greatest mystification of all. I wrote the following in anthother thread...
I fully agree with you. However, it is true that the statistical field is usually separated from the social science field in economics. No doubt, there has been a great tendency in recent times in both of these fields going astray in the way you describe. But, there are mature individual scientists who recognise this, and do their best to try and write about it in an adequate way. This deeper analysis is certainly not mainstream, but as I've said, I think the problem has more to do with certain forces of institutionalisation than with anything else. ie. There are good men trying to do their best in the science, but there are problems with the machinery of institutionalisation which they find hard to overcome. However, I think their efforts should be properly respected.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,528
But, I really dont think the concept of "the invisible hand" is useful. There really is no such thing. ...
Maybe, maybe not. I think myself he was talking in terms, or around 'spirit'. And what is in each individual perpetuates itself to make this whole 'spirit'. There may be something in it - it seems to me that 'we reap what we sow' on more than an individual basis - more so, on a societal level.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
I fully agree with you. However, it is true that the statistical field is usually separated from the social science field in economics. No doubt, there has been a great tendency in recent times in both of these fields going astray in the way you describe. But, there are mature individual scientists who recognise this, and do their best to try and write about it in an adequate way. This deeper analysis is certainly not mainstream, but as I've said, I think the problem has more to do with certain forces of institutionalisation than with anything else. ie. There are good men trying to do their best in the science, but there are problems with the machinery of institutionalisation which they find hard to overcome. However, I think their efforts should be properly respected.

I dont really blame the statisticians \ scientists for doing what they do. They are dependant on funding to do anything at all, and mostly that funding is only available for those who are producing the kind of figures that seem to support the hegemonic position of the oligarchy at any given time. Im always struck by that fact that when I read any text by a genuine scientist, they do emphasise the tenuous nature of their findings, and in no way claim them to be dogma. Its the politicians, corporations and media, when they get their hands on these findings, that turn them into weapons of social control.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,343
Maybe, maybe not. I think myself he was talking in terms, or around 'spirit'. And what is in each individual perpetuates itself to make this whole 'spirit'. There may be something in it - it seems to me that 'we reap what we sow' on more than an individual basis - more so, on a societal level.
We will probably go very far off topic if we get too deep into this, but I'll just say that I do believe that a group of people labouring together will generate a spirit, and this spirit does have a reality. But, such a spirit will not be an agency, as Smith seems to suggest. People will act in the spirit of the group, but the spirit will not act.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top