This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

What If Economists Applied Their Own Theories... To Themselves

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Reuben Brenner via Asia Times,

George Akerlof’s and Robert Shiller’s (Nobels in economics) new book, titled Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception declares on its first page that people “do not do what is really good for them; they do not choose what they really want.”  It appears that a main preoccupation of economists – the self declared “behavioral economists” prominent among them – is to show how dumb people are as consumers and in assessing risks.

Drawn to logical conclusion, this implies that economists, advising benevolent dictators are the solution.  If, indeed, people are often “irrationally exuberant,” plain dumb, uninformed, unable to learn from mistakes, easily manipulated - all the things Akerlof and Shiller suggest - why have markets drawing on mazes of contracts to start with? The book implies that the writers know what’s good for the “hoi-polloi” who suffers from  temptations that these illustrious writers never succumb to and thus should advise governments (in a recent letter, Ralph Nader suggests that Mr. Akerlof should advise his wife – Ms. Yellen – about Federal Reserve policies).

To be fair, such elitism has precedent in Keynes’ famous “animal spirit” view in his General Theory (which was neither “general” nor ‘theory,” as Keynes himself acknowledged, promised to amend, but died before he managed).  Keynes argued that governments must spend sometimes more and sometimes less to compensate for the crowd’s random bouts of optimism and pessimism, implicitly assuming that – hold your breath – politicians and bureaucrats are never subject to such lowly spirits.

Since much in the book implicitly relies on a brief article that brought Mr. Akerlof fame – “The Market for Lemons” — cited in his Nobel Prize award and included in economics courses, I’ll discard it first, and later all the “behavioral economics” fad – which at close inspection is neither “behavioral” nor “economics.”  Perhaps if Mr. Akerlof and economists did some introspection and applied both the article and the fad to themselves, they would have re-written both the article and the book.

The 1970 paper titled “The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism” presented a simple mathematical model within which the quality of goods sold in a market degrade, because of what Akerlof calls “information asymmetry” between buyers and sellers, and buyers being easily manipulated.  One of the model’s implications is that when sellers know more than the manipulated buyers, the latter end up buying “lemons,” defective products that is, of whose defects they become aware only after the purchase.

One reason for this implication is that Akerlof excludes the fact that people being aware of such “asymmetry” have institutions to mitigate it: asking friends and family for information; paying for Consumer Reports; companies advertising (spending large sums to signal that their product can be trusted, since the company must recoup the advertising spending) etc.  The model excludes these options, and assumes that people buy the lemons because the price charged for the “lemons” and the higher quality “peaches” is the same. As sellers get rid of the lemons, the good quality sellers disappear, and the market collapses.  I cannot think of examples to illustrate such sequence of events – except when there are no markets, and the government keeps the lemons supplied, and makes it appear to be peaches.  The economic profession – not computers, i-phones, Ralph Lauren, cars or Chanel – turn out to be an example for such outcome.

Students, media, the public at large have little if any understanding of what the vast majority of economists write about, most of which these days consist of jargon, be it in English or translated to mathematics and statistics.  Mathematicians and statisticians consider these models trivial and they do not double check it; for others the jargons are impenetrable. “Asymmetric” conditions thus fit this profession.  An economist has a degree and even got a prize?  Good enough for passing for a peach: After all people have only 24 hours a day, live once, and cannot spend time double checking everything.

But governments sustain this profession, the end result being that “peaches” quit it, and lemons stay. The market for the lemons does not collapse because governments sustain the perception that “science” underlies its policies, based on the lemony advice.  It is not the first time in history that governments do this: creating and sustaining perceptions of “science” and “peaches.”

A few observations: The fact that there are thousands of students who have studied economics does not mean that they work as “economists,” practicing what they learned.  Yes, lemons among them end up teaching economics or shuffling papers in heavily subsidized government offices, statistics bureaus, IMF, OECD, the Fed, universities etc. – institutions that do not have much to do with “markets.”   Others – the peaches among them – work in a wide variety of professions which have little if anything to do with what they studied or they even make careers refuting economics textbook stuff in courts, among others.

True, Wall Street employs economists. But the vast majority does not work as “economists,” and the few who have titles  of “chief economists,” are often little more than glorified public relation, isolated from the rest of the banks’ operations and sent to give speeches and entertain clients.

Of course Wall Street also employs economists previously working for governments and central banks, who actually give valuable insights. No, the insights are not into economics or financial matters, but in government processes, or into what models decision makers use, even if these models are off the wall.   It matters if one knows what data influences the central banker more (even if the data are unreliable); whether or not by temperament he and the Board are more patient or not.  This has nothing to do with economics though. People may consider “macro-economics” akin to astrology, but if governments and central banks rely on it, the models are helpful making buy and sell decisions. Briefly: when governments sustain demands for a profession, the outcome can indeed be of getting mainly “lemons,” though governments create perceptions that these are “peaches.”

They do so because governments and central banks have to legitimize decisions.  Today legitimacy draws on what passes as “economics.”  In primitive tribes, priests had the exclusive rights to cast lots, throw dice, and this priesthood passed for “peaches.”  No smaller element of chance was perceived in their decisions, just as the word of the – government-imposed-cartel – of Moody and Standard and Poor rating agencies’ views were assumed to have nothing to do with randomness, incompetence or calculated blindness.

In ancient Greece people flocked to oracles and sought guidance. No decision on engaging in war, on signing treaties, or enacting laws was made without oracular approval.  Later astrologers filled these roles.  For more than a century, rulers had their astrological advisers and books, using complex – logically correct – geometry linked positions of stars to make forecasts.  The mathematical complexity then as now, or languages declared sacred at one time, sustained the priesthood’s and astrologers’ claims to “asymmetric information.” And rulers advertised reliance on these select few obedient “peaches’” communications with deities and stars.  But recall, Kepler wrote in his diaries, found after his death, that he did not believe a word of his astrological analyses, but had to make a living.

Today Councils of Economic Advisers, IMF, OECD, Nobel prizes sustain perceptions that “macro- strology” and much else of what economists do is “science.” 

If anyone disagrees with the above perhaps will explain how Mr. Akerlof got his Nobel for his “asymmetric information” jargon, and the fact that he and colleagues lacked introspection – or sense of humor to – Escher-like – test its implications on themselves first.  Or another Nobel (Krugman) could repeatedly state: “Japan needs a 200% or 300% inflation rate … and the central bank declare its intention of acting irresponsibly” (italics in the original, in Richard Koo’s, Holy Grail of Macroeconomics, citing Koo’s debate with Krugman on the topic ) – and not laughed at.   Indeed, lemons perceived as peaches – by some anyway.
 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 12/17/2015 - 11:51 | 6935248 indio007
indio007's picture

"Mathematical complexity" is a con. I only exceeds because the foundations of modern mathmatics is hollow. Axioms instead of proofs nowadays. There isn't a proper defination of the real numbers.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 12:55 | 6935553 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Here is a modern economist applying his expertise to the medical field:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqbn7oxXh38

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 13:16 | 6935633 LowerSlowerDela...
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture

Economists: "When the credit card maxes out just get more credit cards." 

WINNING!!!!

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:53 | 6936068 aVileRat
aVileRat's picture

If you ever want to upset a Department Head, just watch his reaction to the following:

- Do you believe in Exo or Endo growth systems? (99% of Academics will do closed end specialization because published papers need theoretical proofs that complete)

- Endogenous growth systems need a cost of capital to survive, to ensure rational allocation and scarcity. T/F (usually they pick True)

- Ok, so if the growth system depends on inflation expectations then monetary policy must do everything to encourage continual consumption T/F (they usually respond very favorably to "true" and the little Keynsian bells go off)

- OK, so if monetary policy is best utilized to promote economic expansion via mandated growth hurdles, monetary policy should try at all times to target a growth rate T/F (this is a golden tenant of oldschool Keynes and a major problem with 1970 styled Fed policy vs. inflation mandates)

- So: You Mr. Academic who has never traded a prop book in your life, would be totally fine with  mandated economic growth and economic growth quotas (and wages) if it means a stable perpetaully growing economy, T/F (if they are not offering you Tenure, repeat step 3 in a different phrasing)

- Then: You Mr. Academic would be for wage controls which mandate a -2% purchasing power each year, so that labor must always be innovating and optimizing consumption. (the silence kicks in)

- And: If labor is non-effective in growing GDP, it should be elminated as structural employment, Y/N (the mumbling kicks in)

- Remind me again Dr. XYZ, Department Head of YYX, what is the P&L on your little "publish or perish" operation? (#REF)

- If a Academic Professor fails to generate a P&L and/or does not teach, what is Faculty policy on -2% clawbacks for non-performing labor units ? (#stackoverflow)

 

Economics, like Who's line is it anyways: Where the math doesn't matter and the stories may be real under certain forms of math (non-Real sets).

 

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:56 | 6936101 FreeMoney
FreeMoney's picture

The purpose and aggandizment of Economics is for two purposes.  #1. to allow politians to over spend in the name of science for the benefit of the children.  #2.  to allow the banksters to manipulate the interest rate and money supply in the name of dual mandate for the benefit of the children. 

It is cover by academics, for theft.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 15:04 | 6936126 Yttrium Gold Ni...
Thu, 12/17/2015 - 11:55 | 6935269 E.F. Mutton
E.F. Mutton's picture

Economists are just like Journalists - truth and facts are secondary to the politics of the person writing the paychecks.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 12:05 | 6935298 Exalt
Exalt's picture

In the public sector yes because employment is guaranteed. In the private sector, you're either right or you're unemployed.

Economics is all about incentives...

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 12:14 | 6935348 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Economists are the Alchemists of the 21st Century.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 13:41 | 6935737 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Indeed! And we can say the same for Public Education. The owner determines what facts are to be taught.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 11:58 | 6935286 CPL
CPL's picture

What if...? 

They'd have been required to produce children at gun point with whoever they were told to fuck for at least 80 generations, even then once a quarter they would have to be required to cut 2% of their mass off their body and that of their offspring  The collected 2% of their body mass would be thrown in a pile of economist tailings that would be misplaced or used in leveraged investment schemes.  The economist would also be taxed 50% of their air, water and space to receive the unconditional guarantee that they would be taxed the next year at 50%.  At random intervals a person would visit their domicile and shit in the corner and tell the economist that it was perfectly normal to shit up another person's house without permission.  If the economy didn't improve, their home would be burned to the ground under the logical explanation that burning down their house and rebuilding it is the best practice for a health economy.  For shit and giggles, the economist would be dropped into the middle of burned out war zone and then informed that this is how prosperity happens.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 13:28 | 6935331 Just Take It All
Just Take It All's picture

bravo!

and don't forget to periodically force the "behavioral" economists to bet on a coin flip that pays out their current net worth plus $1 if they call it correctly, and takes away their entire net worth if they lose. (woudn't want them to fall prey to any irrational bouts of risk aversion)

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 12:03 | 6935306 Demdere
Demdere's picture

https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/warning-ideas-are-dangerous/

Yes, what I said. Economics is not science and can never be, the base data cannot ever produce Cause and Effect relationships.  The data is history-class and can only produce correlations.

You can't do control systems based on correlations, even if there was control system technology that allows controlling open, evolving complex systems, which there isn't.

Economists are witchdoctors with more impressive entrial-equivalents.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 12:15 | 6935359 all-priced-in
all-priced-in's picture

Ever notice that most economists are butt ugly?

 

 

 

 

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 12:20 | 6935380 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

LOL!!  It's called eCONomics for a reason people!!  It is NOT a hard science, it's a social "science" or a  fucking con-job!!!

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:50 | 6936074 FreeMoney
FreeMoney's picture

First we have to assume ....

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:53 | 6936088 GhostOfDiogenes
GhostOfDiogenes's picture

The term economics comes from the Ancient Greek ????????? from ????? (oikos, "house") and ????? (nomos, "custom" or "law"), hence "rules of the house (hold for good management)".[1] 'Political economy' was the earlier name for the subject, but economists in the late 19th century suggested "economics" as a shorter term for "economic science" to establish itself as a separate discipline outside of political science and other social sciences.[2]

Wiki Economics

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 13:19 | 6935649 Clowns on Acid
Clowns on Acid's picture

Engineers make a mistake... the building falls down. Economist makes a mistake and the economy collapses ... and they don't even get punched in the face.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:49 | 6936066 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

It is worse than that.  

 

An engineer designs a bridge to work even if the bridge is filled to the maximum amount of cars that could fit on the bridge.

Economics is designed through repothication and bankster reserves to fail via a run on the bank if more than 10% of the banks depositors take their money out.

Economics is a probabilistically designed shell game, on a good day.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 18:55 | 6937258 CPL
CPL's picture

Usually they get promoted as a standard practice.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 13:22 | 6935658 armageddon addahere
armageddon addahere's picture

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption… in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense… They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs.

If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will."

Adam Smith 1776

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:30 | 6935972 Dig Deeper1
Dig Deeper1's picture

This article finally sheds some light on why financial assets are valued the way they are - muppet madness.  Remember, investors are allegedly one and the same as consumers.

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 14:38 | 6936017 VWAndy
VWAndy's picture

Its not a matter of smarts. Its a matter of integrity. Basically they are yanking our collective chain.

 The best way to show respect to another person is to simply tell them the truth. Honest people as a general rule will be able to handle truth. The lying scumbags not so much. They tend to be math resistant the truth just kinda bounces right off their noggin. A big enough paycheck it turns out is great armor against the truth. Faith is another stronge armor againts both truth and math. They dont call it blind faith for nothing.

Fri, 12/25/2015 - 15:12 | 6937735 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Since the political economy was built on the basis of the long history of successful warfare through backing up deceits with destruction, which became POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, the article above was correct, but still too superficial.

The oldest and best developed forms of social science and social engineering were warfare, which was the actual foundation for how the economy worked, because economics necessarily developed INSIDE the history of warfare. Indeed, political economy is necessarily INSIDE human ecology. However, that history developed intense paradoxes, or sets of consistent contradictions, due to the ways that successful warfare based on deceits and treacheries grew to become successful finance based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS.

Generally, civilization operates through various sets of consistent contradictions due to everything being controlled by the murder systems, (including the monetary systems) which were most socially successful through applying the principles and methods of organized crime, so that the most successful were those who were the best at being dishonest and backing that up with violence. IT IS PLAINLY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO IS WILLING TO LOOK THAT OUR ENTIRE POLITICAL ECONOMY IS BASED UPON GOVERNMENTS ENFORCING FRAUDS BY PRIVATELY CONTROLLED BANKS.

If in doubt, watch enough of these:

Excellent Videos on Money Systems

However, "economists" have proportionally successful and well-paid careers to the degree to which they operate as professional hypocrites, which maintain attitudes of deliberate ignorance and willful blindness towards THOSE SOCIAL FACTS.  Various people who believe that "economics" is NOT a science tend to NOT WANT to think through how and why warfare is the oldest and best developed form of social science and engineering, whose successfulness was based upon being deceitful and treacherous.

The essential issues are that there are, and must necessarily be, some murder systems, while those control everything else, including the monetary systems. Therefore, everything gets done through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, which are operated by the best available professional hypocrites. Human beings and civilization have developed as INTENSE PARADOXES, becoming more and more blatantly Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds, where everything is publicly presented in the most absurdly backward ways, which make SENSE, because the most socially successful murder systems were operated through applying the principles and methods of organized crime, by acting in the most deceitful and treacherous ways possible.

That is the overall context in which all economic activities developed. All private property was based on backing up claims with coercions. There is no private property outside of some system of public violence. The most abstract form of that became that money is measurement backed by murder, which developed to become the currently almost totally dominate systems whereby governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

While those are the actually existing systems, all "economists" have successful personal careers to the degree that they take all of that for granted, in ways whereby they deliberately ignore THOSE FACTS, as much as possible, and while remaining as willfully blind as possible to the overall human ecology INSIDE of which the political economy operates. They pretend to solve intellectual puzzles, often using what appears to be sophisticated mathematics, which amounts to nothing more that elaborate kinds of GI/GO, due to their mathematical models never becoming more than Garbage In, which then pump Garbage Out.

I found particularly interesting that article stating this:

True, Wall Street employs economists. But the vast majority does not work as “economists,” and the few who have titles  of “chief economists,” are often little more than glorified public relation, isolated from the rest of the banks’ operations and sent to give speeches and entertain clients.

Human history has been the history of organized crime manifesting on larger and larger scales, about growing at an exponential rate, due to prodigious progress in physical science, which has recently enabled the previous systems of paper frauds backed by gunpowder weapons to have become globalized systems of electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic bombs. Neolithic civilization social pyramid systems were always based on being able to back up lies with violence, which became more integrated and sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, the most important of which became the foundation of the currently existing political economy, namely that governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

"Economists" have an extremely peculiar role, WITHIN the established sociopolitical systems, whose social successfulness was based upon the long history whereby the triumphant, surviving War Kings became taken over by the Fraud kings. The only things that actually exist are the dynamic equilibria between different systems of more or less organized lies, operating robberies, with the murder systems backing up the money systems being the most important expressions of those.

"Economists" actually end up being socially successful to the degree that they can operate as the best available professional hypocrites. Indeed, that is generally true through all of the currently established sociopolitical systems, because they were all developed on the basis of successful warfare through being able to back up deceits with destruction, which was most effective by being as treacherous as possible. After thousands of years of that history, for generation after generation, various people have developed, mostly cultural but also in somewhat genetic ways to adapt to survive inside of that overall context whereby the human murder systems were the central core to everything else, but which necessarily became socially successful in intensely paradoxical ways, resulting in civilization developing sets of consistent contradictions, whereby everything became publicly presented in the most absurdly backward ways possible.

THAT MAKES "SENSE," WHEN CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF WARFARE, WHOSE SUCCESS WAS BASED UPON BACKING UP DECEITS WITH DESTRUCTION, WHICH MORPHED TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL FINANCE BASED UPON ENFORCING FRAUDS.

At the present time, almost nothing else actually exists than a core of organized crime (bankster controlled governments), surrounded by various layers of controlled opposition groups, which includes all "economists" enjoying proportional of personal successfulness to the degree to which they are able to function as the best available professional hypocrites, to provide the appearance of rational justifications for systems that ENFORCE FRAUDS, in ways which explain THAT by deliberately ignoring, by being as willfully blind as possible, respecting THAT.

It is quite theoretically possible that economics could become an objectively better science, by being more genuinely developed in ways which were consistent with understanding the general energy systems of environmental ecologies. HOWEVER, such progress in political science, expressed through becoming better economics, would not be possible unless it focused attention more directly upon the central issues of the death control systems, with the human murder systems as having been the historically more extreme forms of those. Attempting to do that is in head-on collisions with thousands of years of social successes based upon backing up lies with violence, becoming legalized lies backed by legalized violence, which are now the foundation of the political economy being public governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by private banks.

For economics to become a genuinely better developed social science, it would have to surmount the problems that make that almost politically impossible, such as that it would be necessary to admit and address the issues regarding how and why governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, which are currently the biggest gangsters, known as the banksters, which have persistently applying the methods of organized crime through the political processes, so that governments ENFORCE FRAUDS for those banksters.

Of course, it is also within that context that "economists" appear to not be "scientific." That is a somewhat superficial, and therefore mistaken view. However, that sort of view is almost totally taken for granted by all of those who continue to take for granted the ways that they think using the dualities of false fundamental dichotomies, and therefore, promote bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals, which were originally promoted as the bullshit of the biggest bullies, to enable them to operate as better professional hypocrites.

What we should be doing is using more unitary mechanisms, which understand human beings and civilization as manifestations of general energy systems, acting as entropic pumps of environmental energy flows. HOWEVER, since the social successfulness of doing that through social pyramid systems for thousands of years was based upon being able to back up lies with violence, which for several Centuries has more and more become ENFORCING FRAUDS, whereby the public "money" supplies were made out of nothing as debts,  by private banks, while governments demanded payment of taxes through that kind of "money" being deemed to the required legal tender, ALMOST ALL OF THE SOCIAL SUCCESSFULNESS OF EVERYONE, (INCLUDING "ECONOMISTS") BECAME BASED UPON THEIR ABILITIES TO FUNCTION AS PROFESSIONAL HYPOCRITES WITHIN THAT CONTEXT.

When one begins to better appreciate how artificial selection systems operate WITHIN natural selection systems, one better understands how and why the human murder systems were the most important forms of death controls, that controlled everything else. Furthermore, it then also makes "sense" that successful warfare was based on deceits and treacheries, and therefore, the sovereign states made and maintained by the surviving War Kings, ended up being controlled by the Fraud Kings.

The article above, albeit in still superficial ways, recognizes the roles of the "economists" within the courts of the Fraud Kings as being somewhat like a combination of Court Astrologers, or Court Jesters. Generally speaking, most of their "explanations" are deliberately too psychological, because they tend to deliberate ignore the selection pressures from the environmental ecologies. Natural selection pressures are as physically real as air pressures or water pressures. However, since natural selection pressures primarily operate through the resulting death control systems, the human artificial selection systems that manifest those have been driven by natural selection pressures to become most socially successful by being the most deceitful and treacherous.

The only way to make "economics" become a genuinely better science would be to use more unitary mechanisms to connect human energy systems with the environmental energy systems. Of course, those already are totally connected, and always were and will be. However, the history of social success based on being able to back up lies with violence, becoming the existing political economy based upon public governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks, has driven the development of our Wonderland Matrix Bizarro Worlds, where everything with respect to economic activities is publicly presented in the most absurdly backward ways possible, as the set of consistent contradictions, or as intense paradoxes, due to the most successful forms of organized crime also being those forms which most get away with publicly presenting themselves as doing the diametrical opposite to what they are really doing.

Since the political economy is based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS, all "economists" become personally successful to the degree to which they, like almost everyone else, deliberately ignore that ENFORCING FRAUDS deliberately ignores the principle of the conservation of energy, while also deliberately misunderstand that ENFORCING FRAUDS deliberately misunderstands the concept of entropy in the most absurdly backward ways possible.

At the present time, it is politically impossible for any branch of political science to get out of the deepening ruts that they have dug themselves into, due to the history of social successes based upon backing up legalized lies, with legalized violence, taking the form of public governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks. Instead, we are drowning in bullshit psychologizing "animal spirits" and/or "irrational exuberance" etc., that does the best it can to deliberately ignore and/or misunderstand how human beings and civilization operate as evolutionary ecologies, as systems of entropic pumps of environmental energy flows.

As I say, it is theoretically possible to develop a more genuinely scientific economics, as an aspect of better political science. HOWEVER, it is politically impossible to actually do that, due to the degree to which all sociopolitical institutions, such as various schools of economics, have ended up being dominated by their own varieties of professional hypocrites, because of the ways that they are actually living INSIDE of systems of organized lies, operating robberies, through applications of the principles and methods of organized crime, which fundamental SOCIAL FACTS ABOUT ENFORCING FRAUDS they are proportionally paid to bury under bullshit, rather than paid to publicly uncover and explain.

Overall, the ways that the previous systems of paper frauds backed by gunpowder weapons have become electronic frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs, means that the excessive successfulness of controlling civilization through applications of the methods of organized crime has become runaway criminal insanities. Within that overall context, it is typical for various articles republished on Zero Hedge (to a far greater degree than in the mainstream mass media) to superficially present the increasing insanities that result from a political economy based upon governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks, such that there is now a globalized Royal Court of Fraud, wherein the central bank of each country that has been integrated into that system is that National King of Fraud, while the Bank of International Settlements is the King of King of Frauds.

NONE OF THE "ECONOMISTS" EMPLOYED WITHIN THOSE INSTITUTIONS COULD POSSIBLY GET HIRED, NOR KEEP THEIR JOBS, UNLESS THEY WERE THE BEST AVAILABLE PROFESSIONAL HYPOCRITES, WHO SORT OF ACT AS THE ASTROLOGERS AND/OR JESTERS, DOING APPARENT DIVINATIONS AND/OR PUBLIC RELATIONS, WITHIN THOSE ROYAL COURTS OF FRAUD.

In those senses, the article above was quite correct. However, since it does not appreciate the degree to which MONEY IS NECESSARILY MEASUREMENT BACKED BY MURDER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO FULLY APPRECIATE WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IF "ECONOMISTS APPLIED THEIR OWN THEORIES ... TO THEMSELVES!"

Thu, 12/17/2015 - 22:36 | 6937994 texas sandman
texas sandman's picture

An upvote  just for the tenacity to type all of that.

Fri, 12/18/2015 - 00:50 | 6938220 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

LOL!!!

texas,

I have been criticized by some others that post on Zero Hedge for tenaciously sticking to my "talking points." However, after all, that is what politicians tend to always do! Politics is a perpetual propaganda war, in which repeating messages is like the growth in a jungle ...

Fri, 12/18/2015 - 14:52 | 6940087 mkhs
mkhs's picture

 "George Akerlof’s and Robert Shiller’s (Nobels in economics)..."

 

There is no such animal.  It is the Riksbank prize to make economics "science like".  Mr. Nobel did not include economics for a reason.

Don't encourage them.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!