I thought to myself, “Its beginning to seem like all economic problems are caused by professional economists. But, these are the guys who are supposed to be solving economic problems, not making them. Who can you trust, anymore?” “Henry,” I said, “it sure gets discouraging to think that the very people we expect to know what they are talking about, don’t! I hear these fallacies every where I go—every time I turn on the TV news. This is all the ‘talking heads’ are spewing out—a bunch of economic fallacies. What’s the fundamental problem?”
Henry replied, “The most frequent fallacy by far today, the fallacy that emerges again and again in nearly every conversation that touches on economic affairs, the error of a thousand political speeches, the central sophism of the “new” economics, is to concentrate on the short-run effects of policies on special groups and to ignore or belittle the long-run effects on the community as a whole.”
“Well, I know; you’ve made that abundantly clear—a couple of times already, Henry,” I replied. “You’re beginning to sound like a broken record. What I want to understand, but still don’t understand, is why the people you refer to as ‘professional economists’ keep doing this. What’s in it for them?”
Said Henry, “The ‘new’ economists flatter themselves that this is a great, almost a revolutionary advance over the methods of the ‘classical’ or ‘orthodox’ economists, because the former take into consideration short-run effects which the latter often ignored. But in themselves ignoring or slighting the long run effects, they are making the far more serious error.”
“How so,” I asked.
“They overlook the woods in their precise and minute examination of particular trees,” said Henry.
“You mean in their mathematical approach to economics?” I asked. “They seem to have charts and graphs by the hundreds. They show everything sliced and diced from here to Sunday.”
Said Henry, “Their methods and conclusions are often profoundly reactionary. They are sometimes surprised to find themselves in accord with seventeenth-century mercantilism. They fall, in fact, into all the ancient errors ,or would, if they were not so inconsistent, that the classical economists, we had hoped, had once for all got rid of.”
“Henry, this is very frustrating to hear,” I said. “I’m still missing something, though. If the so-called ‘professional economists’ are in error, and the errors are so obvious, how are they getting away with it?”
“It is often sadly remarked,” said Henry, “that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it.”
“Well,” said I, having learned from my own experiences in trying to refute fallacies, “I guess that’s what makes some demagogues so successful.”
Henry replied, “The most frequent fallacy by far today, the fallacy that emerges again and again in nearly every conversation that touches on economic affairs, the error of a thousand political speeches, the central sophism of the “new” economics, is to concentrate on the short-run effects of policies on special groups and to ignore or belittle the long-run effects on the community as a whole.”
“Well, I know; you’ve made that abundantly clear—a couple of times already, Henry,” I replied. “You’re beginning to sound like a broken record. What I want to understand, but still don’t understand, is why the people you refer to as ‘professional economists’ keep doing this. What’s in it for them?”
Said Henry, “The ‘new’ economists flatter themselves that this is a great, almost a revolutionary advance over the methods of the ‘classical’ or ‘orthodox’ economists, because the former take into consideration short-run effects which the latter often ignored. But in themselves ignoring or slighting the long run effects, they are making the far more serious error.”
“How so,” I asked.
“They overlook the woods in their precise and minute examination of particular trees,” said Henry.
“You mean in their mathematical approach to economics?” I asked. “They seem to have charts and graphs by the hundreds. They show everything sliced and diced from here to Sunday.”
Said Henry, “Their methods and conclusions are often profoundly reactionary. They are sometimes surprised to find themselves in accord with seventeenth-century mercantilism. They fall, in fact, into all the ancient errors ,or would, if they were not so inconsistent, that the classical economists, we had hoped, had once for all got rid of.”
“Henry, this is very frustrating to hear,” I said. “I’m still missing something, though. If the so-called ‘professional economists’ are in error, and the errors are so obvious, how are they getting away with it?”
“It is often sadly remarked,” said Henry, “that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it.”
“Well,” said I, having learned from my own experiences in trying to refute fallacies, “I guess that’s what makes some demagogues so successful.”
No comments:
Post a Comment