***Galbraith and Friedman were two of the leading late twentieth century experts in macroeconomics -— the study of the national or global economy. They applied different macroeconomic theories to make their predictions. Both predictions were completely wrong, which indicates that the theories from which the predictions were made were also wrong.***
And the Austrian school predicted the Great Depression as well as the current housing crisis.
GREAT article. And I’ve had graduate level instruction in the “science.” In many respects its like the difference between weather forecasting (accurate within a narrow time range) and climate science (great looking backward, terrible looking forward [always misses the turns]).
Well, in the context of “controlled experiments” the world was divided into socialist-communist nations and capitalist-market economy nations. Guess what the data showed. That the left still pushes socialism-communism as the ‘best way’ is testimony to their lack of objective thinking and their willingness to put personal dogma ahead of reason, even if it hurts lots of people.
All of the liberals that I know do not believe in economics and think that the government can do any thing it wants without any negative consequences to the economy.
Of course, all the liberals that I know do not believe in logic, a cost/benefit analysis, or reality.
” They applied different macroeconomic theories to make their predictions. Both predictions were completely wrong, which indicates that the theories from which the predictions were made were also wrong””
That is a false statement. Just because they did not achieve the prediction they had planned, that does not put into question the theories they used. One does not relate to another.
A view of economics from that perception has many different aspects to consider and one theory builds upon another. Milton Friedman did not have flawed theories. He just chose the wrong ones to apply to some particular forecasting.
There is certainly a very predictive power to understanding economics, that can be as detailed as any science. I agree with that.
In the continuing fall from conservative grace that David Brooks is earning for himself, last night on Brooks & Shields, Jim Lehrer asked both men if the Wall Street crisis was a moral crisis — asking if Wall Street fund managers “should” take huge pay and bonuses if they are also taking a taxpayer bailout. While Shields, ordinarily the apologist for the Democrats, said that of course it is a moral issue, Brooks, ostensibly the apologist for conservatives, said that it costs that much in New York to get talent, and if the big guns on Wall Street don’t get mega-millions in compensation, they will go elsewhere, such as to another country, to get it — they would not even temporarily accept the $400,000 limit proposed as an appropriate cap while using public funds.
There is something very sick about such thinking. No loyalty to America nor respect for wage-earning taxpayers whatsoever. I’m disgusted and horrified.
Huge storms of inflation will be present on Obama’s watch.
The problem, in my opinion, is that people adjust and change their behavior for every change made in the economic, social, and political environment. Friedman’s guess made sense if you continued the trajectory of the previous years. However, people adjusted their behavior when changes arrived.
Gee, it makes you just beg for Hari Seldon to show up. LOL