Pylimitics

Is “economics” the worst, most egregious example of nonsense claiming to be some sort of science? It might not quite as far afield as, say, “ufology,” “astrology,” or “numerology,” but I think that’s because those other pursuits are not taken seriously except by their adherents. As far as I know, you can’t study or earn an advanced degree in, say, astrology at an accredited, mainstream institution. But not only can you do that in “economics,” but if you do your degree will generally be regarded respectfully.

There’s usually (maybe always) math involved in “economics,” and that helps with the respect. Also many others in that line of inquiry have hyped the field quite effectively. There’s a “Nobel Prize” for economics — but it’s a fake. The actual Nobel prizes were established by the Nobel Foundation and first awarded in 1901. There are five categories. The “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel,” which is what the economics one is actually called, started in 1968 and was created by a Swedish bank (the Sveriges Riksbank).

Somewhere in the process of studying for a degree in “economics,” there must be some classes in subjects like “stating nonsense confidently,” “projecting the image of a serious person,” and “how to convince people you’re smarter than they are.” Not every student of economics aces those classes, of course, but it seems that quite a few of them do.

The nonsense espoused by “economists” is often obviously inane, but so earnestly presented that, for some reason, most people buy into it. “Economists” are doing the same thing as con artists and scammers, just usually at a higher level. And it’s more subtle — the “economists” aren’t usually trying to get money out of you in the short term (unless they’ve just published a book or have some sort of “newsletter” subscribers pay for). Instead they’re playing a longer game, presenting themselves and their fellows as reliable, serious advisors and analysts.

These clowns have enjoyed enormous success in hyping their nonsense and managing to be regarded seriously. Many of their tropes have even entered everyday language. Everybody recognizes the phrase “zero-sum game,” for example. If there’s a winner, there has to be a loser. In the real world, though, situations like that are not so common. Like many (most?) of the “ideas” promulgated by “economists,” the zero-sum game is a oversimplification to the point of meaninglessness, or worse.

“Economists” are to blame for a great deal of asininity in the world, from “trickle-down” to the financialization of societies to the immensely asinine idea that corporate management’s primary — even only — responsibility is to deliver profits to shareholders.

Shakespeare wrote “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” (Henry VI). I’ve got another set of candidates to nominate.