I am a student of economics, a follower of Keynes AND Friedman. They are not incompatible, they simply deal with the opposite problems: Keynes – unemployment; Friedman – inflation. However, when economists whip out the equations, I roll my eyes. Economists are often political scientists (Hayek & Galbraith are also in my pantheon of heroes) because they regularly deal with the same issues – right down to the futility of math in predicting outcomes. There is a simple reason that predictive economics is so difficult – it is not a science. Like politics, economics is psychological.
A simple metaphor serves to illustrate my point:
If a computer was to play hands of poker with itself, would the outcome be the same as if the hands were played by professional poker players? Of course not – poker is primarily a game of bluff, not science, even though there are scientific arguments that define it. Similarly, the outcome of a labor strike (as well as its cause) is much more symptomatic of bluffing than any reality, and their resolution is more a reflection of the personalities involved than the facts. Economics IS politics.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
