Paul A. Tanner III posted Nov 9, 2012 9:58 AM: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:43 PM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > ... > > I generally tend to agree with Kirby that much of > economics (whether mathematical or otherwise) is a > chimera, a mirage. (I have previously termed it as > 'the dismal non-science', with which characterization > Paul has disagreed). > > > > Whatever you may think, much of it not what you > think. There's plenty > of real science and real scientific data as to what > to do and what not > to do. Just look at the most success economies in the > world for > examples of at least some applications of this real > science. Their > successes did not happen just by accident. > > The only reason what these scientists know works best > has not been > done more often than it has been done is because too > many powerful > people of the conservative, science-denying > persuasion have convinced > like-minded people to vote against real progress. > (Their denial of the > real science in economics is similar to their denials > of evolution and > climate science.)> > I do not disagree that there are 'developed nations' in this world that have devised economic systems that have generally been *more successful* (even MUCH *more successful*) in meeting the real needs of their people than has the the USA. As often noted by you, the Scandinavian countries in particular provide a good example of such.
China is one instance of an 'developing nation' that seems to have devised an economic system that has met the economic needs of many of its people more effectively than has India (whose record has been terrible). China's record on human rights has been awful. So has been India's.
But India has generally been more nominally 'democratic' than China.
However, the issue I raise is rather different: > > What economists have failed to work out is the very > fundamental matter of how the things citizens (and > their governments) actually do from day to day "MAY > CONTRIBUTE TO" what they (citizens; the specific > nation) are trying to achieve ('good working > conditions'; 'sound relationship with the > environment; 'reduction of fiscal deficit'; > 'balancing the budget'; 'arriving at a fair and > workable tax structure'; ...; or whatever). > I believe the economists of the 'socialist-capitalist' countries have not quite been successful at this (though definitely they've been more successful than the 'ruling economists' of the USA or of India).
I still claim that 'economics as a science' requires some major overhauling - whether the ruling economists of a nation are advocating 'pure capitalism' or 'socialist-capitalism' (and whatever variants of an 'economic system' the respective nations are practicing).
And I still do claim that economics is, by and large (whether in the US or elsewhere), *largely* a 'dismal non-science' - and it will remain so until the economists work out models showing the "CONTRIBUTIONS" of activities to what the national economy is intended to achieve.
We can (if you're up to it) work out the relevant models from first principles (and our 'common sense') instead of relying on 'economic dogmas' of the right - or of the left.
I shall try, in due course, to put the arguments in terms that would be better understandable than what I've stated above. Meanwhile, do please check out the attachment with my previous message for a 'qualitative discussion' (based largely on the Indian situation) of the above argument. The system relationship "contributes to" is critical in the above argument.