The title of this blog is EconoSpeak and this suggests that it is, in broad terms, about how the actual economy works. However, the packaging and the content obviously do not fit together. What you get under the bluff package of EconoSpeak is the following.
― Sandwichman’s post of Jan 22 deals with chimpanzee poo-flinging and sums up: “People really need to learn to stop trying to ‘refute’ the ‘alternative facts’ that are being flung. Shit is shit. You cannot refute feces.”
― Sandwichman’s post of Jan 20 deals with the hitherto overlooked erotic dimension of exchange: “This calls attention to the erotic dimension of the sales transaction. Sometimes the commodity isn’t the most auspicious thing being exchanged. Cue the traveling salesman jokes... did you hear the one about Amway Dream Night?”.
― Barkley Rosser’s post brings a historically exhaustive top ten list of corrupt/ pathological/ perverse presidents and places Mr. Trump at the bottom of all nine circles of Dante’s Inferno: “The Worst Human Being Ever Elected President Of The USA”.
The point is NOT whether all this information is true or false but that it has NOTHING to do with the economist’s first priority, that is, to explain how the economic system works. The point is that all this information turns in the given context to disinformation. Worse, moralizing belongs, as a matter of principle, to the sphere of politics and NOT of science. Science is about facts, consistency, and proof.
It is of utmost importance to keep political and theoretical economics apart. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics scientific standards are observed.
In the given context, the irrelevant posts about chimpanzees and Mr. Trump effectively DISTRACT from the crucial facts: (i) economics is a failed science,#1 (ii) economists are incompetent scientists,#2 (iii) economists’ policy proposals never had a sound scientific foundation, (iv) to determine the “Worst Human Being” in politics or any other walk of life is NOT the business of the economist, (v) economists are the Trumps of science,#3 (vi) Sandwichman and Barkley Rosser are the Trumps of economics.
#1 See ‘Failed economics: The losers’ long list of lame excuses’
#2 See also ‘Delusions of useful idiots’
#3 See ‘Economists: The Trumps of science’
In analogy to Barkley Rosser’s ‘The Worst Human Being Ever Elected President Of The USA’ I would like to nominate Barkley Rosser and Sandwichman as ‘The Worst Human Beings Ever Corrupting Economic Blogs’ because they will suppress this post as they have many times suppressed posts which expose their abject incompetence and stupidity.*
* See for example ‘Gossip economics’
Political fraud is a bad thing and inexcusable. As bad as it is, it is surpassed in the negative by scientific fraud. Generally, fraud comes in three variants (i) as fake news/information, (ii) as confusing and distracting disinformation, (iii) as suppression of true news/information. Economics is a failed/fake science and EconoSpeak is (i) promoting economic approaches that are known to be false, and (ii), stonewalling/ suppressing true theory.
It is of utmost importance to keep political and theoretical economics apart. Political economics is just as corrupted as politics itself and scientifically absolutely worthless. Political economics has hijacked theoretical economics. This explains why economics is, after 200+ years, still at the proto-scientific level. EconoSpeak is a particularly crass example for political economics and manipulative attention management it its two forms of cheer-leading and slander.
There is not much to say about Trump bashing except that it is NOT economics and that incompetent economists like Sandwichman and Barkley Rosser are NOT qualified to pass judgment on politicians or anything else on this planet.
Related: 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?' and 'Delusions of useful idiots'