Re: The Prize by Any Other Name

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barkley,

Economics has more in common with theology than science.  Science requires
fidelity to reality, albeit the perception of reality is affected by scale and
perspective.  Nevertheless, science proceeds from observation to conclusion.
Theories of economics are mostly mental constructs while economics reality is
governed by political regimes that keep corresponding theories valid. When
theory conflicts with reality, economists can remain attached to their theories
by proclaiming reality to be at fault.

All this was amusing but relatively harmless, until a time came when economists
began to play critical roles in the formulation of government policy, and the
appropriateness and validity of different policies are argued on the basis of
economic theories.  Thus a whole string of unnatural concepts such as the
natural rate of unemployment, the myth of scarcity, the wholesomeness of the
maximization of profit, the externalization of direct cost, the optimization
effect of marginal utility, the blind faith in the myth that the public good can
result from a calculus of individual selfish considerations, etc., began to
affect human civilization.

There is no doubt that all Nobel economists are brilliant minds. Whether their
brilliance contribute to human welfare is highly debatable.

Henry C.K. Liu

"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:

> Henry,
>       We have already debated about Akerlof
> and Stiglitz.  However, I would add that some
> of the others on that list have both had good
> ideas as well as strong ethical orientations,
> although arguably they are in the minority.
> Among those in the last ten years I would
> note especially Amartya Sen and William
> Vickrey.  Some of the earlier ones on the
> list would qualify as well, I would contend.
> Not quite the total wasteland you depict,
> although in many years your description has
> been all to apt, I'm afraid.
> Barkley Rosser