An economics degree is proof someone has no idea how an economy works

The point of the title – IT’S EASY TO BELIEVE AOC HAS AN ECONOMICS DEGREE – is not to point out how dumb Ocasio-Cortez is, but how shallow economic theory has become. It’s a quite nice article, which for me is only diminished because no mention is made of Keynesian theory. And this may be because by now almost no one even appreciates where the problem lies. He refers to central banks as the core of non-solutions to our economic problems but not to public spending. Still, I like what he writes. Here are some quotes from the article.

Why is it so hard to believe that she has a degree in economics? It seems far too many people have rather inaccurate ideas about what is taught in economics programs nowadays. The truth is there is little emphasis on understanding markets in economics programs, and little emphasis on the value of markets. The emphasis is now on using economics to justify state action in the economy. And any bias that may have once existed in favor of unhampered markets in these departments is vanishing.

There’s no reason to believe that a student with an economics degree is going to graduate with a deep understanding of how government intervention distorts markets or impoverishes consumers. The theoretical foundations behind such things are mentioned, of course, but at many institutions they are most certainly not emphasized. Far more likely, one learns in these programs that central banks can be relied upon to fix almost any economic problem faced in the course of a business cycle. And if a certain problem becomes especially difficult, the answer surely lies in giving the central bank even more power.

It’s entirely plausible AOC took any number of economics courses and came out with good grades after learning virtually nothing accurate about entrepreneurship, wages, money, or consumer choice. What she did learn on these topics was likely built on the premise that the state ought to be intervening and tinkering with all these things.

Economics is taught with the first priority being an ability to write some abstruse but highly mathematised paper of no relevance to anything other than it can be published in a high ranking journal. There is then some smattering of theory related to how government can fix things by hiring economic grads to work on devising policy since the market left to itself will only make things worse. An economics degree is merely proof that someone has next to no idea how an economy works. It’s sad but it’s true.

NEEDS ELEVATION FROM THE COMMENTS: Via Tim Neilson.

James Hacker:
Bernard. Humphrey should have seen this coming and warned me.

Bernard Woolley:
I don’t think Sir Humphrey understands economics, Prime Minister. He did read classics, you know?

James Hacker:
How about Sir Frank? He is head of the Treasury.

Bernard Woolley:
Well, I’m afraid he’s in even greater disadvantage in understanding economics. He’s an economist.

Many a truth is told in jest.

Latin for Oxford classical scholarettes

Perhaps this is what they have in mind: Greek and Latin are hard: Oxford classics faculty proposes dropping Homer and Virgil from required curriculum so female students will do better on the tests. As it says:

I don’t know how Oxford plans to pull off teaching classics without, um, teaching any classical literature–but maybe, so as to close those “attainment gaps” for female students, the dons can devote a few units to Helen of Troy’s body-positivity issues.

You could make it a pre-requisite for Engineering for Girls

The Sheryl Sanders role model meets Captain Capitalism

Feminism has its mighty grip on our culture and will not let go any time soon. This began from an Instapundit post on Sheryl Sandberg gives awful advice to women. Follow it at your peril and the following, from Captain Capitalism, was quoted in one of the comments.

Dear Ms. Venker,

I skimmed your piece in the Washington Examiner because I already knew what it was going to say; just wanted to make sure.  And sure enough it said what I thought it would.

Women are not men.
We’re supposed to compliment each other.
We are not adversaries.
Leave the proposing to men.
Feminism has ruined women and made them miserable.
Insert examples of miserable women here.

Blah blah blah.

But may I ask you to entertain a new approach?  One that might be more effective in convincing future women that feminism is not the way?  And one that will be less frustrating than merely saying “Sheryl Sandberg bad.”

Leave Sheryl Sandberg alone.
Leave the women who follow her advice alone.
Matter of fact encourage them, or just not bother with them at all.

And the reasons for this approach are many.

First, you are not going to convince any woman today to abandon feminism and go with traditionalism.  You yourself provided several examples of what I can only imagine to be middle aged women with children and careers who are facing problems in their marriages.  Do you think at that age and with that much infrastructure invested in a non-traditional life they can just uproot all of that midstride and in a flip of a switch go to a traditional 1950’s nuclear family?  Additionally, it doesn’t sound like they’re abandoning their roles, just complaining about them.  And these are women who have a receptive ear to traditionalism.  Traditionalism just not powerful enough to override their entire life’s investment they’ve made in feminism or the buyer’s remorse they most certainly have.  You’ve cured no one (or at least very few).

Second, do you think your article, along with every traditionalist argument made in the past 30 years even holds a candle to the trillions of dollars and billions of human hours that have been invested in now-three generations of women to follow a feminist life philosophy?  This isn’t to say you’re wrong.  You are factually right.  But did you have all young women’s ears from K-thru-college?  Did you control the media?  Do you have a best selling book like Ms. Sandberg?  And do you control academia?  For every hour (if an hour at all) a mom taught her daughter about being a good mother or wife, supporting her man, staying svelte and beautiful, etc., there were at least a thousand hours of feminist counter-propaganda installed in young women’s minds.  And to give you an example of how out gunned and out-spent traditionalists are compared to feminists I’ve provided an infographic below.

Third, do you really think women are going to listen to you?  I can completely sympathize with you and your goal to offer women an alternative to the feminist lifestyle they’ve had forced on them.  I understand the moral, noble intention you have to provide a solution or at least an option to women who are not happy with their love lives.  But take it from me dear, they won’t listen.  Humans are programmable automatons, not the “independent minded” sentient beings they fancy themselves to be.  And though I’m willing (and hopeful) to be proven wrong, I’m going to guess the success rate you’ve had of convincing women to become traditionalists are about the same as mine to get people to spend less than they make, eat less calories than they expend, and get young people to stop majoring in stupid shit.  Zero. Which then behooves the question for you as to whether or not you want to put yourself through this banging-your-head-against-the-wall-torture.

Finally, there is also a nuanced, esoteric argument to be made about balance, karma, and universal equilibrium.  Do these women, after decades of feminism, outsourcing their kids to daycare, putting their careers above humans, things above love, deserve to “be saved?”  Do they deserve to find “happiness” and “love?”  I personally don’t believe any of them will be convinced of the merits of a traditional life/relationship, making this question moot.  But what I am trying to do is make you question your own (albeit moral, noble, and well-intended) incentives.  How many of these women simply loved their careers more than their children or husbands?  How many of these women valued a corner office or a fancy title more than human interaction?  How many of these women in the past probably turned down perfectly good men that would have otherwise made great husbands, all for an unanchored religion like feminism?  And how many of them were just plain mean and unfeminine in the past to men?

Though noble, your goal is not only impractical, but is getting in the way of universal karma that is going to be delivered anyway.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.  The only person you can save is yourself.  So please, let women have what they want.  Let women have what they choose.  Treat women as equals and let them make their own choices in life.  But above all else, truly treat them as equals in letting them reap the costs and consequences of those choices.  And perhaps then you may find some solace in learning to “Enjoy the Decline.”

Sincerely,

Aaron Clarey

Bloomberg is the Democrats’ best chance

It seems to me that Bloomberg is now the one to beat. He took some flak from Warren and others but merely flesh wounds. The Democrats care nothing at all about moral failings. They want power, and he can give it to them. He is the Democrat version of Trump. He may have not a policy thought in his head that will make things better but will work well with the Deep State. He was the mayor of New York so he knows something about politics, and he did set up Bloomberg media so he knows something about running a business and even something about managing an economy. And he is a man who cannot be embarrassed. And the Democrats do not want Sanders.

Start here:

And he already has quite a large number of ads he has already done with many more to come.

Then add this: Bloomberg isn’t beaten: The politicians of America are for sale to their highest donor.

Bloomberg is in the Democratic nomination race for as long as he wants to be. The longer he stays in the race, the greater the amount of money he’ll spread around. The more he spends, the more the party managers and the senators and the governors and, though they’re far too high-minded to admit it, the media will come to see his candidacy as a fact that’s going to go the distance, and a reality to which the smart money should accommodate itself in case Bloomberg’s candidacy becomes a payday.

And from Drudge.


BLOOMBERG VOWS TO KEEP FIGHTING
DEM DEBATE RECORD RATINGS
ANOTHER ONE NEXT WEEK

And from Instapundit:

THE HINDEN-BLOOMBERG! NYC mayor goes up in flames at Vegas debate.

Or does he? As John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post, “The thing is, even if the entire night had been the epic disaster the first hour suggested it would be, Bloomberg isn’t going anywhere — and he is likely only to increase his insane level of spending to do what he can to erase memories of his performance.”

As repulsive as he is, among the Democrats he is the least repulsive and has a ton of money to spend.

The Democrat semi-finals half time report

And you still can’t be sure that one of those Dems won’t be president next year. Via Instapundit.

FEBRUARY 19, 2020

ELIZABETH WARREN TAKES IT STRAIGHT TO THE BILLIONAIRE WHO CALLS WOMEN FAT BROADS (VIDEO).

Or to put it another way: Bloomberg got scalped.

HARSH, BUT FAIR:

F.A. Hayek was not a free market fundamentalist

He was quite quite different from Mises.

F.A. Hayek was not a fan of free market fundamentalism.

“Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire.” — The Road To Serfdom.

He wrote this in 1944.

Of course, the word “liberal” had a different meaning back then.

Obama: robbing from the poor to give to the super-rich

Further to my post on Is it really that hard to understand that unproductive public spending lowers productivity? there is now this: Obama Instituted the ‘Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History’ to the 1%. Here are the statements made in large print.

“During [The Great Fleecing], the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world occurred. Some $4.5 trillion was given to Wall Street banks through its Quantitative Easing program, with the American people picking up the IOU.”

“the Obama administration is the first two-term presidency that has not posted a 3% GDP growth on an annualized basis for 8 years. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt posted 3% growth year during the Great Depression.”

The gap between rich and poor has widened more under Obama than under any other president.

You can read the whole thing at the link. Why anyone believes that Democrats are for the poor and the hard working is anyone’s guess but is in no way built on the facts.

A petition for a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone would be required (under oath) to tell the truth

From Watts Up With That?: Australians – Please Sign the Petition for a Royal Commission into Climate Science.

Guest announcement by Mike Jonas,

The petition can be signed online at: https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

Only an Australian resident or citizen can sign. Note that signing is a multi-step process, ending with an email signature confirmation.

Alan Kohler (read on) has called for a royal commission to ‘review the evidence’ on Climate and Energy Policies to conduct:

… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.

Alan Kohler is an honourable high profile journalist, investment guru and businessman who believes the evidence of the “97% of scientists” (without questioning truth to power?).

Alan and WUWT readers may differ on what we believe will be revealed in such a Royal Commission, but we do agree that we all need to see the evidence, the impact and the timing, so we can have a better idea of what we all need to do, first for the people of Australia, and for the people of the world.

Please bring this Media Release below to your friends’ and family’s and social media’s attention and if they happen to be Australian – urge them to sign this e-petition.

It could be that a strange and unlikely alliance of alarmists and realists can line up in the same direction, with a common purpose – to have a Royal Commission to get at the truth.

Imagine what this would mean for the CAGW hypothesis if we can get this Royal Commission up.

Imagine the 97% and the 3% of scientists all telling the truth under oath to give everyone assurance that quality due diligence is applied to underlying science-based assumptions, data collection, technological developments and evidence based public policies.

Australians: Please read and sign House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231:

https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

Please note: This post is from a comment by Chris Dawson a few days ago, edited and upgraded to a full post. The original comment is at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/11/climate-science-does-an-about-face-dials-back-the-worst-case-scenario/#comment-2914552

Jo Nova has put up the petition on her blog: Petition: Alan Kohler wants a Royal Commission …

There are only a few more than 500 signatures so far. A lot more are needed. Please send this on to everyone you know, alarmists and realists alike.