The Death Knell of Economics

I think it's uplifting to conceive of our financial nightmare as a funeral. Unlike most other entombments, which cause mourning over the loss of a loved one, this funeral should only elicit celebration in lieu of the end of a particularly deleterious branch of the social sciences: economics.

A famous and well-respected man once said (well, you could at least imagine one saying), "You can only trust an economist so far as you can throw one."

Or, as a distinguished female (we don't discriminate here at Introspective Excess) once exclaimed, "Economists are about as useful as screen doors on submarines."

There is truth to these statements.

Economists are a sanctimonious breed, on par with priests and pet lovers. Regardless of an economic trend or phenomenon, there will always be some "explanation" that fits within their current "model" or "theory." Their concepts are unfalsifiable. I do not know what one could possibly say to a man of this occupation that would convince him that he were wrong. God have mercy on the poor aides and journalists forced to suffer through attending a conference filled with strong headed economists of opposing views.

Case in point: Republicans still argue that tax cuts (a byproduct of Reagan's free market, trickle down ideology) are the solution to our ongoing economic woes. Obama, ever the consumer of economic "expert" advice, sought to attack this myopic understanding when he suggested yesterday that,

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis...

But what if Obama's plan doesn't work? What if spending is not in fact the way to go, and only proves to be slow, cumbersome, and symptom-and-not-problem attacking, as the Right alleges?

Then you can bet the farm his camp will have their excuses. I can just hear their kvetching now: "The Republicans made it too small," or "We were forced to wait beyond the point of no return to implement it." Guaranteed, something to protect their fundamental (Keynesian) model while shifting the blame will pervade these excuses. You can also bet that no matter what the outcome of the bill, economists on the Right (and likewise, their mouthpieces in the Halls of Congress) will have their fair share of criticism for it.

The irreconcilable differences between economists on the right and left are an indictment against the field itself. Think about it this way: If two scientists can look at the same piece of data and come up with not just differing opinions but opinions that are fundamentally contradictory, then what can you say about that science?

The most fundamental question that has been neglected by mainstream writers is, whether or not there is a right answer to an economic problem. Is there really a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of approaching an economic crisis? And if you answer this question in the negative (as I believe), then what's economics' purpose beyond stifling more effective solutions from being pursued, like those not wedded to an "ism"?

Anyone involved with a hard science, like physics or mathematics, would vehemently deny that economics can approach their level of objective judgment. In their fields, fundamental, natural rules set the boundaries to a problem's potential solution. Rules (like gravity, or Pi) dictate the outcome of a given action and enable these scientists to accurately predict its effects.

While clearly not all scientists will agree on every new, technical discovery, there at least ought to be some consensus on the more fundamental tenets of the field. For instance, doctors concur that smoking causes cancer. Physicists concur that when you drop something, it will accelerate at a given rate.

After economists' long, arduous and costly journey in search of the holy grail of rules; in other words, their journey to legitimately call themselves a "hard science," I think it is finally time for them to understand what they really are: wannabes.

In conclusion, despite their fundamental, surreptitious role in the activities of public and private America, these wannabes' have received surprisingly little castigation since it was discovered that this America had thoroughly bungled things for the rest of us.

Instead, the financial bankers and corporate executives who rely on the wannabes' models are feeling the brunt of public vehemence. I for one feel sorry for these public figures, who after all, just acted in consonance with economic predictions that foretold the economy would continue as it had been since Clinton. At least they do not hide what they really are -- slick crooks out for a profit. Economists on the other hand insist on considering themselves "scientists," when all they really do is cover up an ideological bias and excruciatingly pathetic yearning for recognition as a worthy member of the scientific community, with fancy graphs and scatter plots.

Economics, R.I.P. Go find a ditch and throw yourself in it. God knows that when that happens, you can count on at least one of us to be standing there with a shovel, waiting anxiously to cover you up.