Audience at Tea Party Debate Cheers Leaving Uninsured to Die

[BrooklynRedLeg]

No, to be a "trained" Austrian Economist you should have done creative writing, because praexology is a fancy word for "making shit up".

Sorry, but that is untrue, especially the last part.

What you may not realise is that all currency is fiat currency. Even gold is only valuable because we agree that it is.

I am not unaware of that fact. Its simply a medium of exchange. This is not something that the Austrian School advocates are unaware of if that is what you're implying.

There is not enough gold left on or in the earth to back the US economy at current market value.

Actually, what exactly is the US current market value? GDP? That's spending. Something the government determines? They lie all the time, murder people across the planet and do things that any rational person would declare as sociopathic. Furthermore, there is no need to abolish fractional reserve banking, if its freely entered into. The problem is that it is not. You're forced to use fiat currency (read: debt) and if you don't, you'll end up in a cage.

[Vendetta]

No, to be a "trained" Austrian Economist you should have done creative writing, because praexology is a fancy word for "making shit up".

Sorry, but that is untrue, especially the last part.

Praexology explicitly begins with the rejection of empirical evidence. Once you reject empirical evidence you are making shit up, because there is absolutely no way to determine the truth of any given prediction other than empirical evidence.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Praexology explicitly begins with the rejection of empirical evidence. Once you reject empirical evidence you are making shit up, because there is absolutely no way to determine the truth of any given prediction other than empirical evidence.

That's because something so complex as the actions of 300+ million individuals acting economically is impossible to predict (assuming the US as the base model). You would never be able to have a workable theory because it would have absolutely no predictive value. How fast can you move on such empirical evidence? What do you determine IS empirical evidence and not simply anecdotal? How would any theory be Falsifiable? To assume otherwise is presumptive arrogance. Furthermore, people are not chessmen you can move on a board. You do not, cannot, have a prior claim on their lives.

[Vendetta]

That's because something so complex as the actions of 300+ million individuals acting economically is impossible to predict (assuming the US as the base model). You would never be able to have a workable theory because it would have absolutely no predictive value. How fast can you move on such empirical evidence? What do you determine IS empirical evidence and not simply anecdotal? How would any theory be Falsifiable? To assume otherwise is presumptive arrogance. Furthermore, people are not chessmen you can move on a board. You do not, cannot, have a prior claim on their lives.

It's almost as if the whole discipline of statistics had never existed, isn't it?

There are a lot of fields of study which have to predict very complex things over a very wide range of cases. Fields like medicine, for instance. They use statistics to ensure that they are making evidence based decisions.

Just because it's hard and you have to be clever at maths doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means Austrian school economists can't be bothered to do it.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

It's almost as if the whole discipline of statistics had never existed, isn't it?

Except statistics are not infallible.

There are a lot of fields of study which have to predict very complex things over a very wide range of cases. Fields like medicine, for instance. They use statistics to ensure that they are making evidence based decisions.

Economics is not a physical science. Acting like it is shows presumptive arrogance.

Just because it's hard and you have to be clever at maths doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means Austrian school economists can't be bothered to do it.

Let me get this straight so that I am not making a strawman of your position. You are saying that the government (since you're advocating either Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian economics) has a prior claim to all its citizens lives? It can best determine what is good for them, whether they want it or not? You are saying that something so vastly complex as 300+ million individuals acting economically can be predicted for and correctly moved around to suit the needs of those in power?

[Vendetta]

It's almost as if the whole discipline of statistics had never existed, isn't it?

Except statistics are not infallible.

I never claimed that they were. However, they have a lower chance of failure than any system which explicitly rejects any form of evidence in favour of making shit up.

Economics is not a physical science. Acting like it is shows presumptive arrogance.

It does, however, purport to make predictions about real world events. Pretending that this can usefully be done without then comparing those predictions against real world results to determine whether the predictions were accurate shows idiocy.

Let me get this straight so that I am not making a strawman of your position. You are saying that the government (since you're advocating either Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian economics) has a prior claim to all its citizens lives?

The government is an appointed manager, I expect it to be given the tools required to manage the things it has been appointed to manage. Attempting to prejudice the discussion by painting government as being by necessity an aristocracy will score you no points.

It can best determine what is good for them, whether they want it or not? You are saying that something so vastly complex as 300+ million individuals acting economically can be predicted for and correctly moved around to suit the needs of those in power?

I am saying that using proper statistical analysis allows for far better economic decisionmaking than making shit up. Your wild paranoia about the whole concept of government has spawned that last bit of drivel.

I suspect that you are simply uncomfortable with the concept of empirical evidence being applied to economics because it tends to show that countries with high levels of government involvement in the markets (eg. Scandinavian style social democracies) tend to be demonstrably better for a larger number of people than laissez-faire systems (evidenced by metrics like IHDI), whereas in the "making shit up" school of economics you get to declare that government intervention is The Satan as an a priori judgement and then make up any justification you like to support it.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I never claimed that they were. However, they have a lower chance of failure than any system which explicitly rejects any form of evidence in favour of making shit up.

Then explain Stagflation.

It does, however, purport to make predictions about real world events. Pretending that this can usefully be done without then comparing those predictions against real world results to determine whether the predictions were accurate shows idiocy.

How can it make a prediction? What do you determine is empirical evidence? What do you discount? How many factors do you list before you have to cut it off? How many times do you refine your theorem before calling it?

The government is an appointed manager, I expect it to be given the tools required to manage the things it has been appointed to manage.

Just who exactly appointed them as managers of an economy?

Attempting to prejudice the discussion by painting government as being by necessity an aristocracy will score you no points.

I am saying that using proper statistical analysis allows for far better economic decision making than making shit up.

Based. On. What? The lag time between decision making and the data gathering makes such decisions questionable at best.

Your wild paranoia about the whole concept of government has spawned that last bit of drivel.

I'll thank you kindly not to target me with ad hominems.

I suspect that you are simply uncomfortable with the concept of empirical evidence being applied to economics because it tends to show that countries with high levels of government involvement in the markets (eg. Scandinavian style social democracies) tend to be demonstrably better for a larger number of people than laissez-faire systems (evidenced by metrics like IHDI), whereas in the "making shit up" school of economics you get to declare that government intervention is The Satan as an a priori judgement and then make up any justification you like to support it.

I have this sneaking suspicion you haven't got a single clue as to what laissez-faire actually looks like. My bet is that you, incorrectly, think the modern US market is laissez-faire. You want to live with a planned economy? Be my guest. I don't. What makes your claim to my well-being superior to my claim?

[Vendetta]

Then explain Stagflation.

Whether I personally can explain stagflation or not is of no relevance to the discussion.

How can it make a prediction? What do you determine is empirical evidence? What do you discount? How many factors do you list before you have to cut it off? How many times do you refine your theorem before calling it?

Ah, the Gish Gallop. Creationists are not the only evidence deniers who love it so. There is a wealth of information on how to appropriately use statistical evidence to investigate complex phenomena, including those with long time lags. Once again, the field of medicine probably has the best advocates for this. You may want to read some works by Ben Goldacre or Simon Singh.

Just who exactly appointed them as managers of an economy?

The electorate, that's how democracy is supposed to work. And to forestall your inevitable counterargument, yes, the electorate also decided that the economy needed managing in the first place, because it elected representatives who said they would do so.

Based. On. What? The lag time between decision making and the data gathering makes such decisions questionable at best.

Based on the empirically proven track record of correctly applied statistics in examining complex phenomena and producing effective results, and the empirically proven track record of making shit up being disastrous in pretty much every field where it has been applied.

I have this sneaking suspicion you haven't got a single clue as to what laissez-faire actually looks like. My bet is that you, incorrectly, think the modern US market is laissez-faire. You want to live with a planned economy? Be my guest. I don't. What makes your claim to my well-being superior to my claim?

Oh, I'm quite aware of what laissez-faire systems look like, they're even worse than the modern US, as they combine its current massive wealth disparity with absolutely no social safety nets (not just hopelessly inadequate ones) and nonexistent workers rights. I understand that you want to return to the Gilded Age because some of the growth numbers looked impressive (that's the usual nostalgic yearning of austrian schoolers), but that's only because the initial conditions were so bad. It's easy to get 200% growth in real wages when wages start out at two beans and a pinch of dirt.

[Bakustra]

How in God's name an Austrian can pretend that economics doesn't make predictions is beyond me- the entire point of the Austrian Business Cycle is that it says that the business cycle works through credit, and this makes testable predictions.

Also, I'd dearly love it if people would explain what would be so horrible about a planned economy.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Ah, the Gish Gallop. Creationists are not the only evidence deniers who love it so.

This is supposed to reinforce your argument? Comparing my statements to that of a Creationist?

There is a wealth of information on how to appropriately use statistical evidence to investigate complex phenomena, including those with long time lags.

None of which applies to economics.

Once again, the field of medicine probably has the best advocates for this. You may want to read some works by Ben Goldacre or Simon Singh.

I'm tired of repeating myself. Economics is not a physical science. Acting like it is so does not make it so. People are not lab rats.

The electorate, that's how democracy is supposed to work. And to forestall your inevitable counterargument, yes, the electorate also decided that the economy needed managing in the first place, because it elected representatives who said they would do so.

You have got to be kidding me. Now we're back to the idea that the government has a prior claim on people's lives.

Based on the empirically proven track record of correctly applied statistics in examining complex phenomena and producing effective results, and the empirically proven track record of making shit up being disastrous in pretty much every field where it has been applied.

Do I have to keep repeating myself? Economics is not science. Treating it as such is presumption.

Oh, I'm quite aware of what laissez-faire systems look like, they're even worse than the modern US, as they combine its current massive wealth disparity with absolutely no social safety nets (not just hopelessly inadequate ones) and nonexistent workers rights. I understand that you want to return to the Gilded Age because some of the growth numbers looked impressive (that's the usual nostalgic yearning of austrian schoolers), but that's only because the initial conditions were so bad. It's easy to get 200% growth in real wages when wages start out at two beans and a pinch of dirt.

Like I suspected, you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about. As usual, you cherry picked an era where government intervention into the economy was just as bad in its own way as the modern world. Do the transcontinental railroads ring a bell? They sure as hell were not the fruits of a laissez-faire market.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

How in God's name an Austrian can pretend that economics doesn't make predictions is beyond me- the entire point of the Austrian Business Cycle is that it says that the business cycle works through credit, and this makes testable predictions.

You cannot accurately predict the economic activity of 300+ million individual actors. People are not lab rats and acting like they are is presumption at best, stupidity at its worst.

Also, I'd dearly love it if people would explain what would be so horrible about a planned economy.

If you want to live in a planned economy, more power to you. The problem is forcing other people to live how you want to live. Last time I checked, "Might Makes Right" is an immoral creed.

[Bakustra]

How in God's name an Austrian can pretend that economics doesn't make predictions is beyond me- the entire point of the Austrian Business Cycle is that it says that the business cycle works through credit, and this makes testable predictions.

You cannot accurately predict the economic activity of 300+ million individual actors. People are not lab rats and acting like they are is presumption at best, stupidity at its worst.

Sure you can. I'm going to make a prediction right now, and it will be nice and accurate: Woooo! The economy will not recover until demand increases! People need money in order to buy shit! Woooooo! There. I just predicted the activity of hundreds of millions of people, and I bet it will be, in fact, accurate. The ABC predicts that economic crashes are predicated on an overavailability of credit. If a major crash occurred during a period of moderate credit availability the theory would be discredited you fucks would pull out this same bullshit rather than reconsider any of your theories.

Also, I'd dearly love it if people would explain what would be so horrible about a planned economy.

If you want to live in a planned economy, more power to you. The problem is forcing other people to live how you want to live. Last time I checked, "Might Makes Right" is an immoral creed.

So why don't you want to live in one, chuckles? Flipped a coin one day? Used a copy of The Road to Serfdom as a sex toy?

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Sure you can. I'm going to make a prediction right now, and it will be nice and accurate: Woooo! The economy will not recover until demand increases! People need money in order to buy shit! Woooooo! There. I just predicted the activity of hundreds of millions of people, and I bet it will be, in fact, accurate.

The ABC predicts that economic crashes are predicated on an overavailability of credit. If a major crash occurred during a period of moderate credit availability the theory would be discredited you fucks would pull out this same bullshit rather than reconsider any of your theories.

Excuse me, but there has been approximately $20 trillion pumped into the economy. How is that a moderate credit availability? The fact said credit went to scum at the top does not invalidate the fact its been a huge expansion of liquidity.

So why don't you want to live in one, chuckles? Flipped a coin one day? Used a copy of The Road to Serfdom as a sex toy?

Apparently any rational conversation with you is impossible. Have fun debating by yourself.

[Bakustra]

Sure you can. I'm going to make a prediction right now, and it will be nice and accurate: Woooo! The economy will not recover until demand increases! People need money in order to buy shit! Woooooo! There. I just predicted the activity of hundreds of millions of people, and I bet it will be, in fact, accurate.

So am I an economic genius, nay, wizard, or are you a fanatic who clings to idiotic premises, so open to mockery that even I can do it?

The ABC predicts that economic crashes are predicated on an overavailability of credit. If a major crash occurred during a period of moderate credit availability the theory would be discredited you fucks would pull out this same bullshit rather than reconsider any of your theories.

Excuse me, but there has been approximately $20 trillion pumped into the economy. How is that a moderate credit availability? The fact said credit went to scum at the top does not invalidate the fact its been a huge expansion of liquidity.

What the fuck? Are you familiar with the concept of the word "if"? Can you parse English sentences, or grammar and syntax at all? (A hint: the latter word has nothing to do with the price of alcohol and cigarettes.) I said that IF something happened, THEN something else would happen. Does this go further? Are you at war with the very concept of linear time itself? No wonder you reject empiricism altogether.

So why don't you want to live in one, chuckles? Flipped a coin one day? Used a copy of The Road to Serfdom as a sex toy?

Apparently any rational conversation with you is impossible. Have fun debating by yourself.

You don't have to be ashamed if you managed to fit the whole hardcover up there. While such feats of sexual flexibility are not necessarily admirable, there is nevertheless a certain respect to be had for those that have performed them. Why, this one time at band camp, I- no, I got that out of a movie.

PS: I genuinely wanted you to provide me with an explanation of why you reject a planned economy as a place to live in. You responded with wishy-washy crap that didn't even have the good taste to quote The Big Lebowski. And you expect perfect civility while you pull ridiculous bullshit like that.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

So am I an economic genius, nay, wizard, or are you a fanatic who clings to idiotic premises, so open to mockery that even I can do it?

Fanatic. That's rich. I'm the one clinging to 'idiotic premises' when the Keynesians had the world economy detonate in their faces because of their policies. Right.

What the fuck? Are you familiar with the concept of the word "if"? Can you parse English sentences, or grammar and syntax at all? (A hint: the latter word has nothing to do with the price of alcohol and cigarettes.) I said that IF something happened, THEN something else would happen. Does this go further? Are you at war with the very concept of linear time itself? No wonder you reject empiricism altogether.

God, I forgot how Internet Troll logic worked. Stupid me....

You don't have to be ashamed if you managed to fit the whole hardcover up there. While such feats of sexual flexibility are not necessarily admirable, there is nevertheless a certain respect to be had for those that have performed them. Why, this one time at band camp, I- no, I got that out of a movie.

Did you get diagnosed with Asperger's or something?

PS: I genuinely wanted you to provide me with an explanation of why you reject a planned economy as a place to live in. You responded with wishy-washy crap that didn't even have the good taste to quote The Big Lebowski. And you expect perfect civility while you pull ridiculous bullshit like that.

Maybe if you actually, I don't know, didn't act like a jackass towards me off the bat, I might have had a conversation with you.

[Panzersharkcat]

I suppose I'll jump in, fear of my smacking right into the wall of ignorance because of my shit debate skills notwithstanding. First of all, RedLeg, do note that in the forum rules, it's ok to flame somebody as long as you make a valid point. Anyway, I opt to interpret the idea of the rejection of empiricism is not total rejection of it. Looking at the huge stack of papers from Austrian economists I have next to me, a sizable number of them contain loads of empirical data meant to back up the authors' assertions. I think it's more of them trying to do this like geometry, where you can reason out the properties of triangles and whatnot a priori. You can likewise reason what would happen if a central bank artificially increases the amount of credit there is beyond what markets would have provided: a bubble which then must pop. That's my two cents, anyway.

[Bakustra]

So am I an economic genius, nay, wizard, or are you a fanatic who clings to idiotic premises, so open to mockery that even I can do it?

Fanatic. That's rich. I'm the one clinging to 'idiotic premises' when the Keynesians had the world economy detonate in their faces because of their policies. Right.

Dear god, you may well have some kind of development disorder. Have I been too harsh?

No, it's just the common stupidity. See, there are more than just two economic positions to take. The world is not caught in some sort of Manichean struggle between Keynesian scarecrows who pretend that stagflation doesn't exist and the muscled, oiled-up Children of von Mises. In fact, if you think that your fellow "heroic" Hayekians dealt with the problem of stagflation, you're entirely ignorant of history. Also, Keynesianism has the potential to adapt and to change with the circumstances. So does, to an extent, monetarism, or supply-side, or (dare I say it) Marxism. The Austrian School cannot, because it does not accept any countervailing evidence to its positions.

What the fuck? Are you familiar with the concept of the word "if"? Can you parse English sentences, or grammar and syntax at all? (A hint: the latter word has nothing to do with the price of alcohol and cigarettes.) I said that IF something happened, THEN something else would happen. Does this go further? Are you at war with the very concept of linear time itself? No wonder you reject empiricism altogether.

God, I forgot how Internet Troll logic worked. Stupid me....

Yes, such mysterious logic as pointing out that you did not respond to anything I actually said. Goddamn, that's so alien! Are you a fucking Moon Man From Beyond Time or something? I mean, it would have made more sense if you had said that in exchange to "So where are the fists stored" or something else utterly inane, so that the two statements could at least match in that way, but what you said was "there's a shitload of credit and the economy sucks, wrap it up Keynesailures" in exchange to an if-then proposition. A hypo-fucking-thetical.

You don't have to be ashamed if you managed to fit the whole hardcover up there. While such feats of sexual flexibility are not necessarily admirable, there is nevertheless a certain respect to be had for those that have performed them. Why, this one time at band camp, I- no, I got that out of a movie.

Did you get diagnosed with Asperger's or something?

So you hate the autistic too. You're a real winner, sport. But this doesn't reflect on your sexual desires as a whole! You can still fantasize about the obese or teenagers (18-19) or both or whatever else gets your engine started.

PS: I genuinely wanted you to provide me with an explanation of why you reject a planned economy as a place to live in. You responded with wishy-washy crap that didn't even have the good taste to quote The Big Lebowski. And you expect perfect civility while you pull ridiculous bullshit like that.

Maybe if you actually, I don't know, didn't act like a jackass towards me off the bat, I might have had a conversation with you.

How in God's name an Austrian can pretend that economics doesn't make predictions is beyond me- the entire point of the Austrian Business Cycle is that it says that the business cycle works through credit, and this makes testable predictions.

Also, I'd dearly love it if people would explain what would be so horrible about a planned economy.

This is what I initially posted, and you responded with "Well, it's just, like, your opinion, man, but I'm going to throw out some buzzwords about coercion that I stole from Hayek's argument for the Nazis being the result of fuckin' commies." So you didn't bother giving anything other than a snide half-answer. Maybe if you weren't such a fucker, I wouldn't treat you like one. Just a thought!

[Terralthra]

How in God's name an Austrian can pretend that economics doesn't make predictions is beyond me- the entire point of the Austrian Business Cycle is that it says that the business cycle works through credit, and this makes testable predictions.

You cannot accurately predict the economic activity of 300+ million individual actors. People are not lab rats and acting like they are is presumption at best, stupidity at its worst.

Justify the assertion that economic activity is not predictable. Justify the assertion that psychology (that being the science concerned with the study of human behavior, and by definition of science, the prediction thereof) is useless.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

I'm not ignoring you Bakustra, but I'll get back to you later.

Justify the assertion that economic activity is not predictable. Justify the assertion that psychology (that being the science concerned with the study of human behavior, and by definition of science, the prediction thereof) is useless.

People are not always rational actors. They're not lab rats. They don't all react in ways that are testable. Central planning assumes that people are always rational actors.

[JPaganel]

Also, I'd dearly love it if people would explain what would be so horrible about a planned economy.

You wouldn't ask this if you ever lived in one.

Planned economy implies great centralization. There has to be some central planning entity. In the USSR it was called Gosplan. The two greatest problems it has are slow reaction and poor scalability. The center had a hard time keeping up with what the needs were on the periphery and planned according to what it thought the needs should be. This resulted in amusing things like a small store in a remote northern fishing village with a female population of three having a giant surplus of underwear in a style that was fashionable enough to be sold before ever making it to the counter in the stores of the large cities fortunate enough to get it. Everything is available, in theory. In practice, things rarely wind up where you need them and in quantity you need. The Soviet economy managed to have shortages of toilet paper and soap, while truck drivers were dumping gas in the ditches because they didn't want the allotments cut.

Now, it might be argued that this was all poor planning specific to the Soviet state, but I am unaware of any other planned economy of even a remotely comparable scale doing better, and I have no reason to think it could be done.

[Terralthra]

I'm not ignoring you Bakustra, but I'll get back to you later.

Justify the assertion that economic activity is not predictable. Justify the assertion that psychology (that being the science concerned with the study of human behavior, and by definition of science, the prediction thereof) is useless.

People are not always rational actors.

Not rational does not mean unpredictable.

They're not lab rats.

Irrelevant. No one has said that they are.

They don't all react in ways that are testable.

In what ways do humans react untestably? This is essentially begging the question.

Central planning assumes that people are always rational actors.

No, it doesn't, and even if it did, you still haven't justified the assertion that they are not predictable.

[Vendetta]

This is supposed to reinforce your argument? Comparing my statements to that of a Creationist?

No, fuckwit, it is pointing out that your arguments are irrelevant and your cloud of questions is merely designed to distract from the fact that you don't have anything intelligent to say.

None of which applies to economics.

But those are your very contentions, that it is complex and has long time lags between action and effect. If statistical analysis is demonstrably effective under those conditions, then it does apply to economics.

I'm tired of repeating myself. Economics is not a physical science. Acting like it is so does not make it so. People are not lab rats.

If you persist in claiming that economics can in no way be held up to real world test, then you are effectively claiming that all economics is fiction. This is not true of real economics, only of the Austrian special needs school.

You have got to be kidding me. Now we're back to the idea that the government has a prior claim on people's lives.

You really are a paranoid dimwit aren't you? Government in a democratic system does what the electorate agrees that it should do, part of the fundamental requirement for a government to function is that the electorate agrees to abide by the decisions of the representatives it elects.

Do I have to keep repeating myself? Economics is not science. Treating it as such is presumption.

No, Austrian school economics is not science, but that's why only dribbling retards actually think that it has any useful application to the real world.

Like I suspected, you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about. As usual, you cherry picked an era where government intervention into the economy was just as bad in its own way as the modern world. Do the transcontinental railroads ring a bell? They sure as hell were not the fruits of a laissez-faire market.

Do you have an actual example then? Do you have an actual real world example which will demonstrate that your model of laissez-faire economy will actually work? I'm suspecting not, especially as you insist that such real world demonstrations are somehow impossible, and you're actually pining for a utopia not unlike, say, functional communism.

[K. A. Pital]

What do you determine is empirical evidence?

Any empirical evidence is better than no evidence. Praxeology is unscientific, and that is the last time it is explained in a polite fashion. Science cannot and may not reject empirical evidence apriori. Anybody who does that is no better than a creationist who arrives at the conclusion and ignores the evidence wholesale, and this is why you were correctly compared to one.

And people, don't cut his posts into little bits. It makes the thread explode and look like a god damn dogpile, in which case it won't live long.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

What do you determine is empirical evidence?

Any empirical evidence is better than no evidence. Praxeology is unscientific, and that is the last time it is explained in a polite fashion. Science cannot and may not reject empirical evidence apriori. Anybody who does that is no better than a creationist who arrives at the conclusion and ignores the evidence wholesale, and this is why you were correctly compared to one.

And people, don't cut his posts into little bits. It makes the thread explode and look like a god damn dogpile, in which case it won't live long.

Well, the problem here is I have repeatedly stated that Economics is not science. However, I don't want to get banned so I'll concede to whatever you want. However, the simple fact is that actions that manipulate an economy lead to all kinds of unintended consequences. How that is supposed to be repeatable is beyond me because situations can be wildly different based on an insane number of factors, some of which may not even remotely enter into an economists decision making simply because they're well outside his field of study. People's lives are not toys to be moved around at someone's whim because they think they know best how to solve the problems of such a complex system. History is replete with fools that did such things.

[Panzersharkcat]

It is science. It's simply not a hard science.