Nassim Nicholas Taleb, he of black swan fame, reckons that economics is a pseudo-science, one that should never have a nobel prize. Quite interesting. After all, engineers make bridges that stand up, and there are all sorts of scientific advances that are real and tangible. But economics? If anyone really understood how the economy works, it wouldn't be in the constant flux that it is. So there is a case for saying that even if Brown had been an economist, he wouldn't have got any more right. I suspect one strongly underestimates the thinking the civil servants bring to this, as to any area of government. After all, they are the real "experts". The politicians are just the enlightened amateurs who are meant to provide the vision. Is Osbourne - the Smarmy One - an economist? I think he has the most punchable face in politics at the moment. Not trying to defend Brown particularly, who had all the charisma of a carrot.
The fundamental problem with economics is that politicians can meddle with the market forces which make it work properly by manipulating it to get votes......e.g. the last lefties in charge (Brown et al especially), but it back fired spectacularly and we are paying for it now and a fair bit longer yet. It could be sorted sooner but the pain would be too great for most people and the place would fall apart into anarchy (could suit a couple of posters) and we'd all starve...patience Ducatisti. Democracy only works properly i.e. for the benefit of the people, if the Government of the day can be trusted with the power they are given.
A "necessary implication"? Really? Hmm, where to begin? Let's say John's Ducati won't start ... J: My Ducati won't start! P: Oh? So you're a qualified Ducati engineer now? The dots are there, feel free to join them up - but you're under no obligation, obviously!
Does anyone? Really? i think not and the ones that did/do who made money during the GFC are staying shtum. It's a crap shoot for the financial planners, both govt & private at front line who get all the publicity; it's the cunning bastards whomever get named or seen who have some idea how this shit works.
Heh. And Pete joins in on The Metaphor Game. A good first try. I knew you could do it. Do I need to tear your attempt down or do you see the flaw? I assume you see it already :smile:
Even JMK described economics as the 'dismal science'. The Forth Road Bridge has microphones installed on its suspension cables to monitor the breakage rate of the fine wires that make up the cables. No one has worked out how to fix the problem yet, and it is a characteristic of many suspension bridges. Without intervention at some point it will fall down. I am quite sure many fine civil seravnt minds are beavering away in the background on all kinds of difficult problems but at the end of the day they are human. The politicians are the enlightened amateurs who are meant to provide the vision, but have you seen 'The Thick of It', those in the know say it is remarkably true to life. How many supposed experts have you met who give strength to the joke 'the word expert is derived from ex as in has been and spurt as in drip under pressure'.
Have I ever said anything like 'Fabio Taglioni is an idiot who knows nothing about Ducati engineering' ? Straw Man Pete.
Yes, you have. You had said that Gordon Brown failed to understand how markets operate. I asked whether you understood any better. Loz set up a Ducati metaphor which was not quite apposite. I developed Loz's metaphor to be a better fit to your original comment. Simple really.
Ed Milliband said in a speech last week that land hoarded by property developers would be compulsorily purchased - "use the land or lose the land". The Daily Telegraph reported this as "Milliband's Stalinist plan to seize land..." and compared him to Robert Mugabe. The thing is, Milliband had stolen the idea - it was not his own. Who did he plagiarise it from? None other than Boris Johnson, who even used the words "use it or lose it" of development land in June 2013. The Telegraph implying Boris is a Stalinist, who would have thought it?
So in this super-metaphor, Peter, Gordon Brown designed the contemporary economy based upon previous versions of it, together with known, immutable economic principles that were proved by extensive scientific experimentation and observation, plus a flair for aesthetics and with due regard to emissions laws, the safety of the public, etc which is why John had no right to say what he did about Brown's expertise. The ambition implied in your metaphor, its breadth and scope, literally takes my breath away. Either that or I cannot credit how your lack of comprehension has led you to completely misunderstand the purpose of the original metaphor. I'm torn between to two options. John no more needs to be a superior economist to know that Brown failed to understand the contemporary economic realities than he needs to be Fabio to realise that his bike isn't running - perhaps due to John's failure to adequately maintain Fabio's original creation. Whilst we are on the subject, Pete, who originally designed the world economy? What's his name?
Now you're riffing away into a series of wild fantasies which, entertaining though they may be, is unconnected with the matter previously under discussion; which was Gordon Brown's understanding, or lack of it, of the way markets operate. A person criticising Brown's lack of understanding, when their own understanding is patently far worse, is much like a person criticising Taglioni's lack of understanding, when their own understanding is patently far worse (within the terms of your own metaphor). See? "Designed the world economy"? You're fantasising again.
Sorry it went over your head, Pete. I'll dumb it down for you in future, perhaps. Leave no forum member behind!
Does this mean, by extension, that we shouldn't criticise any racers as all of them would atomise our lap times? Equally, are we allowed to criticise footballers, even when we wouldn't be selected to play in the reserves reserves reserves reserves?
