Comments on: A turning point? http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/a-turning-point.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/a-turning-point.html/comment-page-1#comment-185702 Anonymous Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:39:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6866#comment-185702 >>In proper economic tradition, however, I think the profession has realized the long term advantage to them in siding with government...This is not unique to economics. Governments, starting around the same time, have also purchased almost all of the hard sciences...<< I think that you've nailed it here. >>In proper economic tradition, however, I think the profession has realized the long term advantage to them in siding with government…This is not unique to economics. Governments, starting around the same time, have also purchased almost all of the hard sciences…<<

I think that you've nailed it here.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/a-turning-point.html/comment-page-1#comment-185694 Anonymous Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6866#comment-185694 Very thoughtful comments. I think I find myself predicted accurately by your theory. I cannot understand Economics as Math, I am suspicious of Economics as Philosophy in the sense that you describe. I wonder what Karl Popper (or even Hayek, who praised Popper) would have made of modern Economics. I tend to appreciate cute Economics and greatly enjoy hearing about behavioural Economics' counter-intuitive experimental outcomes. I probably have more confidence then is merited in this group's ability to produce something useful for that reason. Do you have no confidence at all in cute Economics' (I assume you are referring to most experimental behavioural economics, but please correct me if I am wrong) ability to provide a more robust starting point on the path to taking economics from philosophy to science? Very thoughtful comments.

I think I find myself predicted accurately by your theory. I cannot understand Economics as Math, I am suspicious of Economics as Philosophy in the sense that you describe. I wonder what Karl Popper (or even Hayek, who praised Popper) would have made of modern Economics. I tend to appreciate cute Economics and greatly enjoy hearing about behavioural Economics’ counter-intuitive experimental outcomes. I probably have more confidence then is merited in this group’s ability to produce something useful for that reason.

Do you have no confidence at all in cute Economics’ (I assume you are referring to most experimental behavioural economics, but please correct me if I am wrong) ability to provide a more robust starting point on the path to taking economics from philosophy to science?

]]> By: Ray Gardner http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/a-turning-point.html/comment-page-1#comment-185686 Ray Gardner Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:29:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6866#comment-185686 Free market economics basically say that we can't possibly know enough about the innumerable and tiny little details that go into a dynamic economy. Central planners think that it can be done. So as the government grows, those in positions of influence seek to find justifications for the expanding state. I don't see any evidence that the human race has broken the pattern of the rise and fall of civilization, and so since we're on an inevitable track towards despotism, this has less to do with economics, and more to do with the problem of centralized power. It used to be the church, now it's economics. But men in power will glom on to whatever tools necessary to justify their arrogance. Free market economics basically say that we can’t possibly know enough about the innumerable and tiny little details that go into a dynamic economy.

Central planners think that it can be done.

So as the government grows, those in positions of influence seek to find justifications for the expanding state.

I don’t see any evidence that the human race has broken the pattern of the rise and fall of civilization, and so since we’re on an inevitable track towards despotism, this has less to do with economics, and more to do with the problem of centralized power.

It used to be the church, now it’s economics. But men in power will glom on to whatever tools necessary to justify their arrogance.

]]> By: Mike M. http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/a-turning-point.html/comment-page-1#comment-185679 Mike M. Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:58:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6866#comment-185679 Thomas- I completely agree with you and think that you've illustrated your point very clearly. Thomas-

I completely agree with you and think that you’ve illustrated your point very clearly.

]]> By: joenorton http://cafehayek.com/2009/10/a-turning-point.html/comment-page-1#comment-185672 joenorton Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:04:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6866#comment-185672 I think Russ is saying that this Nobel, and the debate going on recently about the wrong-turn in economics in general, has advanced the ball just a bit towards that goal. No one is saying 'done, all well and good since 8am Monday', just that it's an exciting time to be an economist because of the growing potential for a shift. I think Russ is saying that this Nobel, and the debate going on recently about the wrong-turn in economics in general, has advanced the ball just a bit towards that goal. No one is saying ‘done, all well and good since 8am Monday’, just that it’s an exciting time to be an economist because of the growing potential for a shift.

]]>