Asymmetrical Information

The only question I have for economists, is who does a better job in making investment decisions in:

Wartime Economy
Expanding Economy
Weakening Economy
Depression

Definitely Keynesian economists...definitely Keynesian...

Here's a link to a heap of economist jokes:

http://netec.wustl.edu/JokEc.html

Oh boy, I guess it’s imperative for me to throw away my copy of “Wealth of Nations.” It is my understanding that Adam Smith did not earn a Ph.D. in economics. The guy is obviously a total waste of time. Actually, I perceive all Ph.Ds in the Liberal Arts guilty of gross stupidity until proven innocent. This is a very prudent assumption when dealing with such people. Am I joking? Nope, I am dead serious and not engaging in even a slight bit of hyperbole. Richard Hofstadterr definitely would have been very upset had he ever met me.

And yes, economics is not a hard science. It is a Liberal Art. One’s philosophical outlook underpins their way of looking at the world. The math is essentially a very valid means to verify the accuracy of your initial speculations.

On the subject of the "mouse control" link, I was intrigued by the fact that, although I pretended to control the economists (I even got them doing a nice line dance), in reality I suspect they were controlling me.

Time to change the tinfoil...

"..economics is not a hard science. It is a Liberal Art."

Good call David. I have always had a certain respect for universities that teach Econ out of their liberal arts division. Some still do.

some teach it out of the sci faculty???? get out!

course all the students come from the math department... but that's different

Perhaps a sign of the difficulties that economists face -- the only interesting question that Timmy can think to ask them is about who has the best record on investment advice under various circumstances. That, I would think, is a question one would ask investment advisors. An economist might be more interested in discussing how the economy, and its parts, works.

... or work. Better chech my Strunk and White.

Actually, most places I'm aware of house economics in the business school these day. Most don't study traditional "economics" anymore but so-called "econometrics," which is definitely not a liberal art. Whether it's a science, or even a social science, is debatable. But it's mainly about statistical modeling rather than about economic theory. So, no, Adam Smith wouldn't be considered a professional economist in today's times, any more than Socrates would be considered a political scientist.

(Disclaimer: I have a poli-sci Ph.D., although I don't do much in the way of statistical analysis.)

“But it's mainly about statistical modeling rather than about economic theory”

I must concede my gross ignorance concerning this area of study. My guess is that statistical modeling is simply an empirical method of verifying one’s hunches. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the human element when attempting to understand why people make particular economic decisions. For instance, virtually everything depends on one’s view of human nature. Those who believe that human beings are innately good often tend toward Socialist nostrums. Please note that there are considerable differences between Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith---and both gentlemen are considered to be professional economists. How can anyone explain this away? Cynically, I also suspect that statistical modeling might be a cowardly attempt to avoid acrimonious exchanges within the academic social milieu.

Comments are Closed.