Talk:Economics
[edit] Archaic ideas
In other words a random collection of ideas that the author disagrees with, without any detailed exposition as to why, and despite a small number of serious academics still adhering to them (dismissal on these grounds is blatant argumentum ad populum), and despite the fact that there is a huge spectrum of views in economics and only a tiny number of economists were competent enough to foresee the events of recent years.
This section should NOT be here, it is intolerable to rationality. — Unsigned, by: 86.138.69.164 / talk / contribs 2011-12-29T21:56:33
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
- Correct, only a handful of economists foresaw the recession. Of those that did, note that none of them espoused belief in the archaic beliefs listed.
Radioactive Misanthrope 06:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of economists foresaw the recession, including Marxists and Austrian Schoolers who interestingly had some similar critiques (dispite the obvious differences) largely centered around the Fed, the debt-based nature of the economy, and the trade deficit with China. Unless you're being sarcastic here. The list iirc came about because of myself and User:Researcher, but on reflection there are really different levels: One, obvious crank ideas. Two, ideas which made a serious impact on economic thought at one time but not today, e.g. Georgism. Three, those with serious and arguably widespread academic adherence today, e.g. laissez-faire/Austrian School and Marxism. I would tend to agree with BoN here that those last two, at least, should be removed from the list. There is quite a bit of bias toward Krugmanomics floating around this wiki... Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which would mean I've reversed my view in the discussion above from 2008 where I argued for the inclusion of both on the list. Times change. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for schooling me on economists, Squirrel. And I change my mind all the time—you get used to it, after a while :-)
Radioactive Misanthrope 21:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- "A lot of economists foresaw the recession". I wouldn't doubt it. Did the majority of economists foresee it? Can we give percentage points to this statement? What percentage failed to foresee it? How many astrologists foresaw the recession and did they do any better than economists?--BobSpring is sprung! 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Marxism and the Austrian School are in many ways two sides of the same coin, particularly in the economic doom factor and the rejection of empiricism. No single laissez-faireite has explained why up here we didn't share the same fate of the US without strong banking regulations, and we all know what's wrong with the Communist Manifesto.
- "A lot of economists foresaw the recession". I wouldn't doubt it. Did the majority of economists foresee it? Can we give percentage points to this statement? What percentage failed to foresee it? How many astrologists foresaw the recession and did they do any better than economists?--BobSpring is sprung! 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for schooling me on economists, Squirrel. And I change my mind all the time—you get used to it, after a while :-)
[edit] Then in 2014
This article gives space to ridiculous heterodox ideologies like praxeology but gives no mention of Schumpeter, Solow-Swan, entrepreneurship, cultural capital, technology or endogenous-growth theory in the main text! This article seems to be as out-of-date as mainstream economics is these days. /rant — Unsigned, by: Pietro / talk / contribs 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] The macroeconomics of Middle-Earth dragons
Old, but worth a chuckle: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/12/the-macroeco.html The comments are also good. --ZooGuard (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)