Your analogy is mistaken. The market is simply the set of all human action, and isn’t a “patient” that learned doctors can “treat”. Politicians don’t create wealth (but can destroy it), and they do not run the economy, and although they can make a simulacrum of prosperity by printing more money, this temporary pseudo-prosperity will ultimately crumble.
You said — “Your analogy is mistaken.”
Analogies are simply word-tools, to give someone else a “view” and a perspective on the other person’s “look” at a situation. And also, analogies don’t “form reality” — they “speak to it” (that is, “what it is”).
In that light, an analogy, in the form that it is meant, is not *basically* wrong or right — because it simply allows someone to see what that other viewpoint is. You’re barking up the wrong tree to say that the “analogy” is wrong — when the analogy shows, very well, where Bush and Cheney are coming from. In that sense, the analogy does its job very effectively.
In other words, you might say and argue that Bush and Cheney are wrong in what they are doing, but *that* would not mean that the “analogy” of what they are doing is wrong. The analogy would be *perfect* (as an explanation of the viewpoint) — it’s the “underlying basis* that you’re saying you don’t agree with (i.e., more like something from a “computer model” of the economy, for example...)
—
You said — The market is simply the set of all human action, and isn’t a “patient” that learned doctors can “treat”.
As I said, an analogy is for the purpose of understanding what the “viewpoint” is of the speaker (which, in this case, comes from Bush and Cheney and what they’re saying). Analogies don’t “work backwards”, in other words, you don’t work *from* an analogy and then “form the basis for facts on the ground” from that analogy... LOL...
You’re trying to say that the analogy isn’t any good, because it’s not a good “model” that one can work from and accurately predict behavior or circumstances “from such analogy”. Well..., it’s not meant to “work backwards” and form fact and be a “model”.
AND..., Bush and Cheney have all their own financial guys with all their “real models” (on computer, most likely and according to their studies) to do that — and you can bet that they are not forming “policy” from “analogies”... LOL...
—
And furthermore, all analogies are only useful “on the surface” (precisely because they are not “models” for predictions, and even “models” are deficient, somewhat, in that area). In other words, analogies work on a “surface level” but not on a “micro-level”. All analogies break down, when one drills down to deeper levels. But, that’s not a defect of analogies, because they are not meant for that purpose. That’s simply not the kind of “word-tool” that an analogy is.
So, once again, they are “word-tools” in order to have an understanding of the perspective of the speaker of that analogy — and in that light, it does give you the perspective of the viewpoint of Bush and Cheney.