Economy: Science or Religion

As each year in the Swiss town of Davos World Economy Forum held which discussed economic issues and intricacies cares about world today. As in Climate Conference (his total uselessness as I have said before: Doha Game over), the results are agreements not to complies anyone, unless they are a benefit to a privileged group in this case skimp on their compliance efforts. In fact most decisions already agreed by the advanced and end what is only a showcase for future economic gurus, gurus cheers for current and better paid holidays a group of consultants, politicians and other people who live at the expense of pretending to do something. No wonder it done near the best alpine sky slope.

 

As its name suggests, it’s a gathering economic and we assume that there is a handful of experts who discuss about the global economy. The first thing to revise is the term expert. This term becomes from experience, and question is all these experts who wear dresses of 3,000€, paid diets for 100 € and have Masters in the most expensive universities, how kind of experience have about poverty, that indeed is the main economic system that exists in the world. This is how the term professional that becomes from having profession that is dedicated to do one thing, which is confused with having office (which term official becomes to it too), but that it usually doesn’t necessarily go together: in astronomy or cooking there are many people that have more office but they aren’t professional because they don’t earn their living, they are amateurs, whereas in every profession there are people who make that they know but they doesn’t know what they do. So a handful of people will discuss issues in the world economy and in the end only end up talking about the markets and market speculation, which is essentially what they know. So a group of people will discuss issues in the world economy and in the end only speak of markets and market speculation, which is basically what they know.
Assuming good that there are people that must be in it, I ask me if do really they know what they do?
First suppose that the economy is a science. Depending on how you define science, we would define it as a set of knowledge, namely knowledge, but in this sense every university studies, professional knowledge, religious belief or ritual is a science. Better we use the definition that the science disciplines are defining it selves: discipline that applies the scientific method.
What is the scientific method? This thing they had been defined first Descartes and Newton later, but it has more with the empiricism of Bacon and Faraday. In short we may say that we first observed a phenomenon, then from experiments or observations can establish statistical laws; once we have a law that we try to relate to other similar with which it is proposed a model or principle; after we must design an experiment where it unequivocally demonstrates that our proposal is true; and then we have a new principle until a new observation or experiment contradicts it. Another aspect to consider is the experiment that it could be anything, it must meet to be repeatable by somebody and to have good defined boundary conditions and variables observed and also all controlled and controllable.
Then from there we can discuss whether economics is a science. And the answer is clear: No. The economy takes its laws from statistical data that is true but it isn’t an experiment that variables need to be monitored and controlled economy and this unfortunately can’t do it, neither it hasn’t known or controlled boundary conditions of experiments. Without this, no statistical data is valid. Obviously put boundary conditions and define variables in their studies, but are they representative data of the experiment? Simply nobody knows. To work with a reality is a problem and that is their main handicap. Biologists working with data extracted from nature, but can be checked some isolated act, trying to bring the samples and they carry out them to a laboratory (even those who work with large animals where their labs are Zoos) for check it with a controlled environment. The need for a controlled environment is to certify real variables acting on the law and remove circumstantial. But economists haven’t got laboratories also to play Monopoly they must considered an experiment. Thus the variables are chosen for inspection.
Aspect that separates the economy of science and brings it closer to be a set of beliefs is precisely the way in which the variables are selected. Generally economist is based on economic theory to do their studies. This is a priori and it has more to do with their beliefs of how is the world than as empirical studies. Adam Smith, the father of the modern economy was also naturalist (XVIII century has nothing to do with the current) and Calvinist; and all his economic theory was based on its other two sides, and that can reduce the economy not need to be regulated because the natural world is itself regulated thanks to God who is perfect had made in this form (this is the life motive of capitalism, God save us!). Obviously you this little experiment, on the other hand not so long ago there was an alternative the communist, which is based on class struggle, Unitarianism primitive (it was a dogma, Marx was not an anthropologist and there was no evidence to indicate it) and capitalism would fall as it did for example Rome. These are all really dogma or ideology, but that influence the choice of variables. Neoliberalism is currently in use in the economic philosophy, but all previous and it analyzes and has drawn conclusions of economic events of the past, and of course everyone has their vision because they have used the data agreed with the belief.
On the other hand the experiments that can be used are microeconomics. Although mainly in the big economy is where they make their picks. Statistics is the science of large numbers, so you have to be repeated multiple times to start a test to give a result; Crash 1929 there was one, and we relate it to crash each other but really was different; so we can analyze the data and draw conclusions, but not a law or scientific model.
Obviously economists have to draw conclusions, make models, even predict, but we must give the real significance of what they do. We're not talking about scientific truths (considering the care that must be taken in the term truths) but rather speculations that unfortunately are better approach to this discipline.
The world today is dominated by economists and many voices promulgate that precisely those experts who rule the world. But like I have shown economists basically apply their beliefs about the world, with any priest of religion. The worst is not a sect of priests may rule, total a chimpanzee invested of minister doesn’t detract in the majority of governments, but this umpteenth attempt to restrict freedom of the people. Currently live the dictatorship of the market and the best solution that they propose is to put the same people governing these markets to govern us, and shortly they will tell us that it isn’t necessary to choose the government. USSR was a dictatorship unquestionable because everything was under scientific rigor and George Orwell described this dictatorship in 1984, where more than a dictatorship was a Theocracy. The USSR died but with the excuse of the crisis and cynicism scandals are pushing us into a theocracy: the religion of liberal economics.