18 signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics

Every mainstream science which touches on political or religious ideology attracts more than its fair share of deniers: the anti-vaccine crowd v mainstream medicine, GMO fearmongers v geneticists, creationists v biologists, global warming deniers v climatologists. Economics is no different, but economics cranks differ in that they typically make false claims about the content of economics itself, as opposed, or as a prelude, to false claims about the way the world works. That target sometimes making it hard for non-economists to differentiate crankery from solid criticism.
Here, then, are some symptoms of bad critiques of economics:

  1. Treats macroeconomic forecasting as the major or only goal of economic analysis.
  2. Frames critique in terms of politics, most commonly the claim that economists are market fundamentalists.
  3. Uses “neoclassical” as if it refers to a political philosophy, set of policy prescriptions, or actual economies. Bonus: spells it “neo-classical” or “Neo-classical.”
  4. Refers to “the” neoclassical model or otherwise suggests all of economic thought is contained in Walras (1874).
  5. Uses “neoclassical economics” and “mainstream economics” interchangeably. Bonus: uses “neoliberal economics” interchangeably with either.
  6. Uses the word “neoliberal” for any reason.
  7. Refers to “corporate masters” or otherwise implies economists are shills for the wealthy or corporations.
  8. Claims economists think people are always rational.
  9. Claims financial crisis disproved mainstream economics.
  10. Explicitly claims that economics is not empirical, or does so implicitly by ignoring empirical economics.
  11. Treats all of economics as if it’s battling schools of macroeconomics.
  12. Misconstrues jargon: “rational.”
  13. Misconstrues jargon: “efficient” (financial sense) or “efficient” (Pareto sense).
  14. Misconstrues jargon: “externality“.
  15. Claims economists only care about money.
  16. Claims economists ignore the environment. Variant: claims economics falters on point that “infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible.”
  17. Goes out of its way to point out that the Economics Nobel is not a real Nobel.
  18. Cites Debunking Economics.

Tags: ,

20 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • gaspar

    Guys, just remember that Economics is in its infancy and just like every other science in history, Economics will also have up&downs, existential crisis, naysayers, detractors, critics and so on. And just as Astronomy, Medicine or Biology became what they are today after some very dark and even self-defeating episodes through centuries, so will Economics.

    All sciences progress through trial and error and Economics is not different.

    Took hundreds of years for Medicine to become respectable and needed by everyone. At first it was called magic, in fact killed thousands. Be careful, I’m not saying economics will become as needed, effective nor important as medicine is today. I’m only comparing the historcial paths, which are very similar for other sciences like Chemistry or even Philosophy, and they all rose stronger and better after every “K.O.”

    Economics is here to stay and the only way to make it better, is through informed critics&opinions, accepting the mistakes&limits and learning from them. Keeping the best and leaving the rest.


    • http://hisstoryisbunk.blogspot.com/ Patrick R. Sullivan

      I don’t think you can say economics is in its infancy when the Chinese knew ‘the invisible hand’ over 2,000 years ago, and Shakespeare references the dead-weight loss of taxation, the laws of supply and demand, and the QTM..

      • gaspar

        I meant as an academic and widespread science, with defined concepts and methodology, books, research, universities, etc. Not as isolated events (important though) which no one took the time to link until centuries later.

    • http://www.aguanomics.com/ David Zetland

      Economics is not a science. We cannot reproduce anything in the lab, as our “rats” don’t behave according to any reliable model. :)

      • gaspar

        So you’re saying that if we can’t reproduce an event or phenomenon in a lab then it isn’t science. Well I guess you would say history or antropology isn’t science, because they relied on events that can not be reproduced in a lab.

        • episkyros

          A bit of metacriticism:

          The whole discussion about what qualifies as ‘science’ and what does not suffers from a traditional and unfortunate carelessness with the word ‘science’.

          IF one refers to ‘science’ in the same way the Romans used it (scientia), then it may be taken to mean ‘knowledge’ in the same way the Greek term ‘episteme’ means it, and everything we study with rigor then qualifies.

          IF one refers to ‘science’ in the way the term has been developing since the early modern period– as synonymous with ‘philosophia naturalis’– then only the experimentally available fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and associated interdisciplinary spinoffs (also known as ‘natural sciences’ because of their observable, replicable, and predictable naturally ocurring mechanisms) qualify as ‘science’.

          The tendency, as already alluded, is to use the term ‘science’ for only the natural sciences, making all other academic subjects ‘wannabe sciences’ or arts/humanities.

          Since economics deals with human behavior and mathematics, it is not an experimentally available endeavor, hence, not a ‘science’. It is more akin to anthropology, sociology and psychology than to the natural sciences. It does qualify as an epistemic subject– something that can be known and studied.

  • Frank Jan de Graaf

    I find this blog article as incorrect as many blogs that criticise economists. Every statement made is partly truth. For example, ‘market fundamentalism’ is coined by Stiglitz were he states that decision makers of the worldbank follow a simple neoclassical approach to government interference in markets. It is not completely incorrect if people who criticise economists follow this argument in other areas of policy making. Also the close relationship between neoclassical economics and neoliberalism as a policitcal theory is seriously researched.

    • Chris Auld

      Hi Frank,

      Thanks for your thoughts. In response, first, we must differentiate between the political views of individual economists and economic science itself.
      Further, click on the link “Myths about the political views of economists” to your left to find published evidence that most economists have fairly centrist political views, and very very few can be categorized as “market fundamentalists.”

      Joe Stiglitz didn’t coin the term “market fundamentalist,” but he does like to use it to criticize political opponents. Public arguments over politics should not be confused with economic thought as expressed in the literature. Stiglitz is quite clear that he is not claiming economic science itself is fundamentalist, e.g.,

      From a historical point of view, for a quarter of century the prevailing religion of the West has been market fundamentalism. I say it is a religion because it was not based on economic science or historical evidence.

      (Stiglitz 2009, emphasis added.) Also note that Stiglitz is himself a mainstream economist. His papers are universally full of mainstream methodology, which he of course has made major contributions to.

      It is completely, not half, incorrect as both an evidentiary and conceptual matter to denounce economics as a discipline on the basis that economists are “market fundamentalists” or “noeliberals.” The latter term is a just a vague bit of profanity almost invariably used to slander opponents in arguments about politics. There is no such field as “Neoliberal Economics,” and neoclassical methodology does not imply any particular political stance. For example, Analytical Marxists typically use rational choice / equilibrium models, but those folks’ political opinions are hardly “neoliberal.” As noted in the article that “sign” links to, use of that term is analogous to a far right-wing person labeling opponents who support any sort of intervention “socialist.”


  • http://krebscycle.tumblr.com root_e

    “You are taking poor Mankiw way out of context. He’s talking about the tradeoff between equality and efficiency. This is a very traditional and relatively uncontroversial topic in economics”

    That may be, but it is a topic on which Manikiw disagrees with Keynes in the passage I cited. To dumb it down, Keynes claims that what he has presented in the General Theory refutes this traditional concern of “economics”. That is why he writes “that measures for the redistribution of incomes in a way likely to raise the propensity to consume may prove positively favourable to the growth of capital.” So Keynes asserts that his General Theory overcomes this nostrum of traditional economics and Manikiw tells poor naive undergraduate students, apparently including you, that the traditional answer is simple fact.

    • http://willonrails.com/ Will May

      No, he doesn’t. (Well, knowing Greg Mankiw, it’s possible, but you can’t tell from that quote.)

      I explained this in my last response to you. Now you’re just repeating yourself.

      • perfectlyGoodInk

        Mankiw is presenting as fact there is a tradeoff between efficiency and equity, when Keynes argued against this. Keynes says redistribution which increases equality can also increase efficiency, specifically in the case where aggregate demand is too low and redistribution increases incomes for poor consumers who are more likely than the wealthy to spend it.

        Note, Mankiw’s principles text was the one I was alluding to in regards to that very prominent one that completely leaves out the income-expenditure model (with no indication to the student that anything is missing). It’s pretty easy for individual instructors to pick and choose which chapters to cover, so there’s no pedagogical reason to not include it. If he was really concerned about wasting paper, he could simply not release editions so often (the upcoming 8E has only very minor changes from 7E).

        This model — also known as the Keynesian Cross — is a standard chapter in other principles texts: McConnell/Brue/Flynn, Hubbard/O’Brien, Krugman/Wells, Case/Fair/Oster, McEachern, Bade/Parkin, Arnold, Frank/Bernanke, Parkin, Chiang/Stone, and Tim Taylor all cover the model.

        Indeed, the only other principles text I have seen that also leaves out this model is Cowen/Tabarrok. What does N. Gregory Mankiw have in common with Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok?

        • http://willonrails.com/ Will May

          No one seems to believe me. Here’s what I wrote earlier:

          –“The relationship may fall apart outside of full employment economies, but otherwise most economists, Keynesian and non-Keynesian alike [I.E., THAT INCLUDES KEYNES], would probably agree with it. (I mean, they do use Mankiw’s textbook, right?)

          Since we’re not at full employment right now, he should probably edit his textbook to make that clearer, however the macro stuff in the second half should get the point across anyway.”–

          And here’s Keynes himself, as channeled by root_e:

          “For we have seen that, UP TO THE POINT WHERE FULL EMPLOYMENT PREVAILS, the growth of capital depends not at all on a low propensity to consume but is, on the contrary, held back by it” (capitalization added)

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            As I mentioned, Mankiw’s principles book does not cover the income-expenditure model, and so he never covers Marginal Propensity to Consume at all (but from what I know, even the principles texts that do cover it don’t try to get into the case where MPC varies across the population, which was Keynes’s point in the quoted passage).

            But more strikingly, in Mankiw’s AD/AS model the economy always starts at long-run equilibrium (implying we’re always at full employment unless there is a shock), and thus all boosts to AD have no effect on output in the long-run and are purely inflationary. This is a pure New Classical interpretation.

            An example of a more balanced approach is having a curved SRAS where if there is an output gap, output is not at that set by LRAS, and boosts to AD will affect output more than inflation (matching the Keynesian view). If AD is far enough up the curved SRAS, then boosts to AD show up primarily in the price level (matching the New Classical view).

            I believe O’Sullivan/Sheffrin/Perez and Tim Taylor cover it this way, but I don’t have O’Sullivan handy right now.

          • Jim

            I think its a little misleading to say that Mankiw implies that the economy starts out at a long run equilibrium. There is a tendency towards a long run equilibrium. It is questionable whether or not the economy is ever in equilibrium. What is useful is he is trying to connect to the academic literature, where in the New Keynesian models there is still a tendency to the steady state.

            In these models monetary policy generally only works to combat the efficiency of sticky prices (or wages). Without the stickiness the Fed is out of a job. (There might be some models out there where this isn’t specifically true, but for a broad class it is) Money is still neutral in the long run in these models. There is quite a bit of Classical ideas in the New Keynesian models.

            I think what you are getting at is if there is actually a tendency towards the long run especially from below. In that regard Mankiw does talk about hysteresis in his intermediate textbook.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            All principles texts will talk about the long-run and short-run in regards to movement of the SRAS curve, and many (including Mankiw) will mention price stickiness in regards to the shape of the SRAS curve. I am specifically talking about the graphical presentation of the model and implications of it.

            In O’Sullivan/Sheffrin/Perez 7E they show side-by-side AD/AS graphs where the left graph shows the AD and SRAS curve intersecting either to the right or to the left of the LRAS curve, and then the right graph shows the long-run equilibrium (see pages 314-316 in the macro split). Figure 15.3 in particular shows how expansionary policies can shift AD to fight a recession and bring the economy back to its potential. You can, of course, find similar graphs in Krugman/Wells (figure 28-4 and 28-5).

            No such graph occurs anywhere in Mankiw. Not in the AD/AS chapter, and not in the fiscal/monetary policy chapter. The closest is Figure 10 in chapter 33, which shows long-run equilibrium and then a shock shifting SRAS to the left. To me, this seems to imply that it takes a shock to move the economy away from full-employment, a very New Classical view.

            Certainly, there are various other principles text who also present it this way, so it’s not as stark a choice as leaving out the income-expenditure model, but I think it’s also rather revealing.

          • Jim

            My last couple of post didn’t go through, they might be lost in in the mix, but here is the basic idea again.

            What I am assuming you are getting at is Mankiw is presenting something like a real business cycle approach, where recessions only come from the supply side. Is that what you mean by only showing SRAS shifts and New Classical? I am sorry if I missed you specifically saying what you mean by New Classical, which is kind of the point of this blog post.

            Look at Figure 8 in chapter 33 (I have the Principles of Macro, in which it is Chapter 20). There it shows a decrease in AD causing a recession. It also shows the tendency of the economy to recover by an increase in SRAS. In the text he talks about “waves of pessimism”, hence AD.

            Also, shortly after in the text their is a conclusion that has three points. The last point:

            “Policymakers who influence aggregate demand can potentially mitigate the severity of economic fluctuations.”

            The idea of AD stabilization is introduced in the AD and AS chapter.

            The multiplier is also discussed in chapter 21 of Principles of Macro, which I think 34 in the combined text under the section “How Fiscal Policy Influences Aggregate Demand”. This is apart from the Keynesian Cross, which I don’t think he mentions anywhere in the principles book a least.

            The textbook might not be the best one, I will give you that, but I don’t see the politics if I understand your view of the possibility political issues correctly.

          • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

            I think my responses elsewhere cover this, but I’ll note that Figure 8 does not show expansionary monetary policy fighting a recession. It shows the economy starting at long-run equilibrium, being moved from equilibrium, and then SRAS automatically adjusting. This illustrates the conservative New Classical view that counter-cyclical monetary policy is unnecessary.

            This is rather different from showing a graph with AD to the left of long-run equilibrium and then expansionary monetary policy shifting it to the right, which would be more in line with the New Keynesian view.

            Indeed, as I said before, there are no graphs at all where the starting point is disequilibrium. The implication is that the economy must be moved away from equilibrium by something (presumably an exogenous shock). This is also much more in line with New Classical than New Keynesian thinking.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Sorry, I was mistaken. Tim Taylor (not to be confused with John Taylor) does indeed cover it this way, using the AD/AS to show both the Classical and Keynesian views by where the economy happened to be on a curved SRAS. If it’s on the flat of the curve, AD increases mostly output, not price. If it’s on the steep part of the curve, AD increases mostly price, not output (this is not a very well-known text, but I expect it to get more attention next year due to developments that are in the works).

            O’Sullivan actually stresses that the SRAS is straight and also flat, arguing that firms will quickly adjust output with only small changes in prices. O’Sullivan also features a very curved AD but doesn’t explain why.

            As best as I can tell, this choice was for pedagogical reasons, and not political ones, in order for the text to be able to devote more attention to the transition from the short-run to the long-run (it devotes a whole chapter to this).

          • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

            Not sure if anyone cares about this anymore, but another text that covers it this way (sorta) is Arnold, which shows a backwards-L shaped AS curve. It explains this model as being a very Keynesian view, and not one that tries to balance the two schools (I do now recall being taught it this way as well), but Arnold does take the approach of alternating its coverage in order to contrast the beliefs of the two schools of thought.

            Case/Fair/Oster is similar to Taylor in explaining a curved SRAS that is nearly horizontal on the left and nearly vertical on the right.

          • Jim

            Mankiw does cover MPC just apart from the income-expenditure model in his Principles of Macro book Ch 21. It should also be in “Principles of Economics” and “Brief Principles of Macroeconomics”. It will not be in “Essentials of Economics”.

            This is according to the chart comparing the 5 versions of the book. I am looking at the 5th edition.

          • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

            Ah, you’re right. Although remember, the point here was that Mankiw’s claimed principle contradicting Keynes. As I said earlier, “Mankiw is presenting as fact there is a tradeoff between efficiency and equity, when Keynes argued against this. Keynes says redistribution which increases equality can also increase efficiency, specifically in the case where aggregate demand is too low and redistribution increases incomes for poor consumers who are more likely than the wealthy to spend it.”

            Will May believed Mankiw probably cleared this up when he got to macro. I didn’t think he even got to MPC, but as I mentioned elsewhere, truly clearing this up would require discussing MPC varying across the population, which no principles text gets into as far as I know. Mankiw clearly doesn’t.

            Anyway, I think my more compelling point was the exclusion of income-expenditure. Regardless of the text’s shortcomings, it is clearly not targeted to survey courses like the Essentials or Brief editions are. In addition to intermediate-level indifference curves, it gets into topics like behavioral economics, political economy, and a 3-graph open-economy model that’s a far more involved the treatment in most other principles texts.

          • Jim

            I agree with that wider point in your first paragraph, enough to have emphasized it the last time I taught intermediate macro. Here is a useful post concerning MPC heterogeneity, especially the linked paper.


            Yes equity efficiency trade off is not as always as simple as it may seem.

            I recently had a similar discussion in my senior growth seminar. Taxes do causes distortion. It might be big, it might be small. However, often those distortions are tiny in comparison to the benefits you will get from a well funded regulatory framework, legal system, etc.

            In many cases the above will increase equity at the same time growth is increased.

          • http://willonrails.com/ Will May

            All I wanted to do was show that Mankiw isn’t some kind of frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Keynesian. This is a whole ‘nother argument that I don’t care enough about to pursue.

        • perfectlyGoodInk

          Will May: “Since we’re not at full employment right now, he should probably edit his textbook to make that clearer, however the macro stuff in the second half should get the point across anyway.”

          I disagree that he really gets to this point in macro, as I’ve argued, but I also disagree that it’s acceptable to wait until macro to clear this up. Many non-majors take only a single economics class, and it may very well be a micro or survey course instead of a macro course.

          I agree Mankiw is obviously not anti-Keynesian, but it’s very curious for a New Keynesian scholar to present only the New Classical interpretation of AD/AS, especially when many other texts do not do so. That his text is the market leader indicates that this is very likely how the profession teaches it to a majority of undergrads, which is troubling.

          And remember, I am neither a Keynesian nor a liberal. I am a libertarian, albeit one who thinks all the macro schools of thought are too obsessed with fighting each other instead of truly trying to overcome ignorance.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            Oops, not majority, but you get the picture.

        • Jim

          Mankiw’s intermediate text “Macroeconomics” has it as well as MPC. His principles text does not really go into very much depth on anything including GDP. It is a non-econ majors principles text in my opinion.

          • perfectlyGoodInk

            I don’t see this as a good reason to leave out the model completely. Most principles texts — Mankiw’s included — take the approach of modularity, where the text can be applied to various courses if you drop out certain chapters. Courses for majors can cover things in more depth and even get into the appendices, and courses for non-majors can get more of an overview survey.

            So it would be better to cover it and then leave it up to the instructor whether or not it makes sense to include it for their particular class.

            After all, he does cover indifference curves in chapter 21, and this is typically only covered in intermediate micro.

          • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

            Note, looking specifically just at Principles of Microeconomics and Principles of Macroeconomics courses (which are usually requirements for economics majors), Mankiw’s text was still the #1 or #2 text used in the 2011-12 academic year.

            So economics instructors don’t seem to be treating it like a text for non-majors.

          • Jim

            I spoke to my opinion, not what others were doing. I don’t use the Mankiw text anymore.

          • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

            Oh, I thought you were trying to present a good reason for why the model might be excluded from the text.

  • Pingback: Six Signs You’re Reading Good Criticism Of Economics | GenFKD()

  • Pingback: Frauds And Fakes | Diary Of A Libertarian NerdDiary Of A Libertarian Nerd()

  • Pingback: On signs you’re reading bad criticism of economics | Alex's Archives()

  • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

    Yes, he explains how these policies can shift the AD curve, but the graphs show just an AD curve. There is no equilibrium on them. No output gap. No other curves. Just a shifting AD curve, out in space.

    A very curious treatment.

    Note, I’m not contending it’s even possible to get across the distinction between New Keynesian and New Classical views in a principles AD/AS model. As far as I understand things, in the New Classical view, the source of recessions is exogenous shocks (for RBC, this is specifically negative technology shocks, the unrealistic nature of this being something that Mankiw himself was critical of), whereas in the New Keynesian view, the source is endogenous in the form of sticky wages.

    The New Classical view also thinks only real variables matter, rendering monetary policy ineffective. Mankiw’s treatment of the topic seems to match at least the spirit of this, as a student can very easily get the impression that any increases to AD must necessarily show up as inflation. Pictures are far more memorable than words, after all, which is why principles uses these models so much.

    • Jim

      I don’t see how Mankiw implies AD stabilization must be inflationary when he admits to both deficient AD being a cause of recessions and fiscal/monetary policy can impact AD. Sure not the best pictures, but the picture you refer to with AD floating out in space doesn’t show inflation either. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

      However, a bigger issue, sticky prices by themselves do not get you recessions in New Keynesian models. If you simulate a NK model without shocks, but with sticky prices you will get the steady state for every period. These are not endogenous business cycle models.

      There can be preference (demand) shocks, monetary policy shocks, and even technology shocks in NK models.

      When the shock occurs prices cannot adjust to get you to the optimal flexible price equilibrium. This inefficiency can be counteracted by monetary policy which is usually specified as Taylor type rule. This is where you are correct, without sticky prices there is no room for monetary policy. There is nothing for it to do, even if it could do anything in the case of an RBC model.

      Here is one paper that might be useful to look at:


      The end of the intro sums up the importance of shocks in NK nicely.

      Here is an example of one with a monetary policy shock:


      • http://perfectlygoodink.com/blog/ perfectlyGoodInk

        Thank you for clarifying my misconceptions on New Keynesianism and for the links. They were particularly illuminating. Reviewing my macro texts this time, let me see if I have it right. Both New Classical and New Keynesian models show the source of recessions as shocks external to their models. New Classical models assume continuous market clearing, resulting in automatic adjustment over time (monetary policy is unnecessary), and only real values can matter (monetary policy is ineffective).

        New Keynesians (following Stanley Fischer’s 1977 model) argue that sticky prices can prevent this automatic adjustment (monetary policy can be useful), and nominal wage contracts mean that even anticipated monetary policy can have real effects (monetary policy is effective).

        The two views could be illustrated in a principles AD/AS model as such (although I don’t think there’s any text that takes this approach). New Classical: SRAS shocked to the left and then automatically shifting back to the right. New Keynesian: AD shocked to the left, SRAS does not bring the economy back to full employment (sticky prices), but expansionary monetary policy can shift AD back to the right.

        No, Mankiw’s figure with AD by itself does not indicate inflation. I had mentioned the lack in Mankiw’s text of any AD/AS graphs like that in O’Sullivan which illustrate an output gap where the intersection of AD and SRAS starts off to the left of AD (disequilibrium), and then expansionary monetary policy closes this gap. You had cited this figure as a counterexample, but it does not illustrate an output gap. I don’t know how you can illustrate disequilibrium with one curve.

        I guess both schools rely on shocks, so that may not be as relevant, but I think my critique still holds. Does Mankiw show an AD/AS model where the SRAS fails to adjust after a negative shock? Does he ever show expansionary monetary policy shifting AD to the right that is not inflationary?

        This may be a subtle point (again, I see the exclusion of income-expenditure as the more compelling point), but I can very easily picture former students, in a year or two, forgetting all the verbiage about deficient AD but remembering those graphs that imply that expansionary monetary policy must always affect the price level.

        It is also rather disturbing that the main two strands of modern macroeconomic research show the cause of business cycles to be exogenous to the model. Similarly, the Solow growth model is really a conditional convergence model that doesn’t actually explain growth (only explaining that capital accumulation cannot the source of growth in its model).

        What you seem to be saying here is that the main two business cycle models in modern macroeconomics similarly “explain” business cycles as being caused by something outside of their models. These are not what most people would characterize as business cycle theories. I am not sure what would be a more accurate name. Shock transmission and absorbance theories?

        I cannot help but be reminded of the Underpants Gnomes from the TV show South Park where they had a 3-step plan where step 1 (“collect underpants”) and step 3 (“PROFIT!”) were known, but step 2 was not. Only in modern macro’s case, it is step 1 that is missing. Neither paper was even trying to deduce what step 1 truly entails. Instead, they were trying to illustrate how certain things could be part of step 1 within the profession’s preferred method of modeling.

        Wouldn’t it be more effective to have a research environment structured more akin to perfect competition, where there WAS no preferred method of modeling, and instead, all of the various different modeling techniques competed on forecast accuracy where the results were publicly posted like mutual fund returns? Comparing results seems a better way to settle arguments on microfoundations and how to best model expectations, but more importantly, to bring focus upon which arguments are actually important.

  • Pingback: Book Review Symposium – Philip Mirowski’s ‘Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown’ | AntipodeFoundation.org()

  • Pingback: A Link to the Past 12/11/2013 | In Defence of Liberty()

  • Pingback: The Best of 2013 | Diary Of A Libertarian NerdDiary Of A Libertarian Nerd()

  • Levi Russell

    “creationists v biologists”

    So what about biologists who believe in a creator? You do realize that the term “creationist” doesn’t just apply to the young earth creationist, “people lived with dinosaurs” crowd, right? You are aware that science and philosophy are different fields of inquiry and that science is limited to the physical world, right? You do realize that making metaphysical claims with a field of inquiry that doesn’t examine the metaphysical is absurd, right?

    I sure hope so. Otherwise, the post is pretty good.

Copyright © 2016 M. Christopher Auld