I understand that there are different schools of thought here, and neither side has proven the other to be incorrect. It is wrong to say, however, that either side lacks evidence and relies only on magic as an explanation for their solutions.
Well, the macroeconomic theory that governed most Western economies for the better part of fifty years has a great deal of data and historical precedent to support it. The -- let's call them alternative -- schools of economics do not. Every time we follow one of the various schools urging "free market" policies, we see a resurgence of economic panics, income disparity, recessions and unemployment.
There are economists who have a far better track record at predicting the results of various budget and economic proposals than others. Should we not listen to them rather than insist that "free market" policies must be right in spite of a lack of any evidence to support it?
It really depends on how you view the evidence. I can shoot holes through arguments like this one just like you'd be able to shoot holes through any study I could show you on the free market. Like I said, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My problem is the tunnel vision that people get when they choose to stand on either side of the issue. Fallacies exist on both sides of the argument.
My position rests on one simple proposition: whenever we listen to people urging deregulation and allow markets to "self-correct" without government intervention, more people get hurt than otherwise. So long as that continues to be true and without a single example of a free market policies that don't create distopian results I will continue to oppose the "alternative" schools of economic policy.
I wouldn't call the Chicago school alternative. Nor would I consider Hayek to be an alternative our counterculture economist.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
I understand that there are different schools of thought here, and neither side has proven the other to be incorrect. It is wrong to say, however, that either side lacks evidence and relies only on magic as an explanation for their solutions.
Well, the macroeconomic theory that governed most Western economies for the better part of fifty years has a great deal of data and historical precedent to support it. The -- let's call them alternative -- schools of economics do not. Every time we follow one of the various schools urging "free market" policies, we see a resurgence of economic panics, income disparity, recessions and unemployment.
There are economists who have a far better track record at predicting the results of various budget and economic proposals than others. Should we not listen to them rather than insist that "free market" policies must be right in spite of a lack of any evidence to support it?
It really depends on how you view the evidence. I can shoot holes through arguments like this one just like you'd be able to shoot holes through any study I could show you on the free market. Like I said, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My problem is the tunnel vision that people get when they choose to stand on either side of the issue. Fallacies exist on both sides of the argument.
My position rests on one simple proposition: whenever we listen to people urging deregulation and allow markets to "self-correct" without government intervention, more people get hurt than otherwise. So long as that continues to be true and without a single example of a free market policies that don't create distopian results I will continue to oppose the "alternative" schools of economic policy.
I wouldn't call the Chicago school alternative. Nor would I consider Hayek to be an alternative our counterculture economist. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQLBitV69Cc
I've very much enjoyed discussing this with you.
Probably not any longer, no.
He's certainly not relevant to modern economics if he ever was.