| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
When symbols become the truth: the religion of macroeconomics
In religion, the founder's words are taken at face value. No one challenges or questions, or demands proof. They are too scared to rot in hell if they challenge the authority of the person to whom a said truth has been “revealed”.
Therefore we have all kinds of religions and sects, each based on the untested and unproven imagination and assertions of the founder. I won't take cite examples, since that would annoy 80 per cent of the readers of this blog.
The other crucial characteristic of religion is the use of symbols. Whether these be idols or icons or even religious texts, these objects take on greater meaning than the sum of their atoms.
It is possible to make anything into a religious symbol, ranging from an imagined “inner eye” to a perfectly natural stone. Then, of course, are the textual symbols. (Once again, I won't give examples.)
I've touched upon the fact that macroeconomics (particularly neo-Keynesian) is ENTIRELY divorced of any reference to reality, being a rational argument, pure and unblemished.
It struck me today that such imaginative rationalism is VERY similar to spiritualism. And that is why, perhaps, it is possible to be both a macro-economist and a religious believer. Both muddle up symbols with reality. Both imagine that symbols add up to something greater than the sum of the symbol's atoms. [Of course, I'm not denying the existence of meaning such as the meaning of words, but note that in the dictionary word all letters are essentially the same. The letters have no intrinsic value, nor the words any more value than the value of their meaning. These are just tools, like a screwdriver or hammer. Something we use for our purpose. We don't worship screwdrivers.]
In macro-economics, an equation is first written down. The equation presumably extracts the “spiritual” component of all relevant knowledge under investigation. A mere “i” can now represent the interest rate, divorced entirely from dynamic interactions of demand and supply of money that muddle up real life. A mere “c” now represents consumption, unrelated to the dynamic nature of entrepreneurship, competition, fashions, and lifecycle changes that effects consumption. And so on.
Now, note that in the case of physics, these symbols are REAL. They MEAN something that is always the same. Lambda is actually the wavelength. Constants are actually constant (unless other factors come into play, which are then independently and precisely identified). Symbols in chemistry, physics, and other sciences are thus worthy of their claimed representation of reality.
The symbols in micro-economics are also REAL, to the extent that a proposed investigation is limited to a simple case. It starts fraying at the edges, but is fairly reliable in its predictions.
But in macro-economics, these symbols come into their own, being presumably GREATER than what they can possibly represent. Symbols can now begin to represent the entire universe of humans and their interactions, totally divorced from all institutional frameworks and reality.
These now become very similar to RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS in their properties.
You no longer can see reality through them. You must now imagine that they represent reality.
The macro-economist tends to behave like a theologician. Once a bunch of symbols are “processed”, generally being pushed through hoops of elementary calculus, an “output” is generated, which is treated with the same veneration accorded to spiritual revelation.
The macro-economist now publishes, with great diligence and seriousness, a “paper”. Like the original scripture of a religion.
The paper is then presented in earnestness to colleagues in “conferences”. Like the religious gurus who go about preaching their message.
Those who support the paper then come to one side. Those who oppose the paper (having arrived at a different set of symbols and hence a different view of the “macroeconomy”) now move to the other side.
Macroeconomic sects are formed.
The ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR of macro-economists, outlined above, thus bears an uncanny resemblance to theologicians from different religious sects.
At this stage macro-economists become members of their specific macro-economic religion.
Now note that proponents of religion REFUSE to consider reality. Reality is inconsequential. It doesn't bother them in the least. The peace they feel is “within”. Fools (like me) who don't understand their “religion” have merely not reached “the level of understanding” necessary to become a practising member of their religious cult.
The same with macro-economics.
That is why macro-economists REFUSE to consider reality, and if you bring up that question to them, they flare up and get worked up. No matter what reality is thrown up at them, they ALWAYS find an excuse to prove their religion right, overcoming the inconvenient truth that their “model” did not even REMOTELY reflect reality.
Btw, the same applies to “climate science”. And many other such “disciplines”.
Let's demand a SOLIDLY PROVEN case each time someone comes to us with “policies” derived from untested and unproven models.
In REAL science, there are no differences between different people. In religion, everyone thinks differently. That should give away the nature of the “policy” being driven by non-science.
Read more at Sanjeev Sabhlok’s Occasional Blog-Economics
Source:
