Posted on 07/27/2011 10:55:12 PM PDT by Razzz42
"Perhaps because those of us who DO just DO and those who can’t teach as they say. But I find there is an academic prejudice if not a snobbish attitude that seems to prevent the advancement of knowledge in Economics. In every other science, you OBSERVE and strive to establish what are the LAWS by which nature works. In Economics, there is no science. This is all about control, oppression, and manipulation. The primary question: HOW CAN WE FORCE THE ECONOMY TO DO WHAT WE WANT! To win the Noble Prize, you have to come up with a wonderful theory. It does not have to be even proven as is the case in Physics. When I was in school, the physics professor said nothing was random. The economics professor said everything is random and that implied it was subject to the manipulation of some theory. Thus, we ended up with Marx and Keynes, but effectively every fiber of our economic understanding is focused on manipulation. We STIMULATE to try to affect DEMAND. We raise and lower interest rates trying to indirectly manipulate borrowing. We interfere in everything with excessive regulation, have no clue about the collateral damage and when that shows up, we lock someone up and blame the other guy.
If I were to compare economics to the stage of advancement in medicine, I would say we are about at the same stage when bleeding the patience you eliminate the poison and leeches were a popular pastime. There is no advancement in this field whatsoever. We are stuck in the mud and the definition of insanity is well known. It is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result."
(Excerpt) Read more at martinarmstrong.org ...
The writing continues at the link.
...I mourn the fate that awaits us for there is no stopping it because we lack truly independent government thanks to political self-interest. Until 1913, you did not vote for a senator. The state legislature appointed who they liked. In 1947, they introduced the 22nd Amendment limiting a President to two terms. It was Thomas Jefferson who voluntarily adhered to a two-term limit writing “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.” It was Eisenhower that said the second term had become a “lame duck” referring to the diminished political power when everyone knows he will be gone.
-——————————— Page 4-———————————
Our greatest problem is a professional class of politician whose self-interest is to stay in office and thus
they will not risk that career by trying to fix something in advance of disaster. They are only toxic waste
management specialists taking charge after the event. John Quincy Adams (President 1825–1829) had
warned: “Where annual elections end [is] where slavery begins.” Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794)
a great Virginia statesman argued that the Constitution was flawed because of the absence of legal
limits to tenure, together with certain other features, rendered it “most highly and dangerously
oligarchic.” Both Jefferson and George Mason had also advised that term limits to the Senate and to
the Presidency were necessary. Mason said: “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a
Republican government as a periodic rotation.” We have people in office their whole lives never
holding any private job totally disconnected from the people...
Ah Economists and Weathermen, the only jobs you can be wrong 100% of the time and still keep your job. Economists have predicted 36 of the last two recessions. One thing I have noticed is that you should ALWAYS vote against a candidate from either party that has an economics degree from Harvard. The econ department there seems not to be on speaking terms with reality.
Theories are never proven, a theory is a model that is tested but never proven.
That said, an economist today is someone who sees something working in practice and wonders if it can be made to work in theory.
I don’t understand why Wall Street hired so many high school dropouts. If only they had hired more MBAs from the Ivy League Schools, then maybe the situation would have been significantly different! WHAT, they did hire MBAs from the Ivy League Schools, now I really don’t understand!
A better analogy than physics for applied economics would be engineering.
The edumacation system purposely dumbs down its students. Well rounded and educated people don’t vote for losers like O’bummer. Hence we suffer for it in the long run.
A lot of lawyers in Congress. Bill and Hillary Clinton were lawyers, the sitting president along with his wife are lawyers, these types only know how to feed off of other people’s misery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.