In being a preacher's son forced to go to parochial school, what information went into my little toddler brain was very controlled and very deliberate. Therefore, like all young children who don't know any better, my brain was limited in it's capacity to fight against what my lizard brain knew was lies, deceit, and sometimes outright mental abuse because it was confined and structured by "facts" that were not facts at all. Things like "I will go to hell if I sin," "If you don't love Jesus you will go to hell," and "the Bible is truth." There are literally thousands more instances of these false facts that religious people use to restrict people's brains, but the larger point is that in getting a young child to agree to false premises, you effectively handicap that individual from ever legitimately arguing against, let alone, challenging the religion. In other words, in a very cowardly way, you fool the child into thinking that s/he can only debate or argue against the religion by using ordained and approved religious techniques. And therefore instead of questioning something as fundamental as proof of god or how precisely a guy nailed to a plank of wood forgives you for putting a snake in Suzie Jone's desk never comes to the forefront as you are instead too busy trying to parse and interpret bible passages.
But a funny thing happened to me today as I was riding my motorcycle around Lake Pepin. I had one of those epiphanies where the light just shot on, forcing me to pull over and take notes so that I would not forget it. And that epiphany is;
You can apply the exact same observation to economics.
As I've aged and become more experienced, I start to realize just how much of a fraudulent study economics is. Not because economics isn't important. Not because there isn't some serious important issues that economics addresses. It's not even that the secret to riches for all does lay within economics (it does and it is what ultimately drives my eternal passion for economics). But rather how the field's self-proclaimed experts have turned it into nothing more than self-serving political bunk. It is no longer simply about the "efficient allocation of resources" or "maximizing the wealth of people" but rather idiotic concepts like the Phillips Curve, running advanced (and ultimately flawed) economic models, fretting about things like the liquidity trap, drawing idiotic foursquare games for "prisoner theory," and the hundreds of other temporary and fleeting relationships that have been observed in the past 60 years that the economist academians trump out and treat it as if it were a real science when in reality it is a constantly changing art as it is human psychology that underpins it all.
And thus my case for "reversing the economic argument."
I tried to read a paper by Paul Krugman once, and while he no doubt probably adhered to Keynesian theory to the letter, in the end none of it made sense and my mind started to wander. Not only because it was boring, but because experience has told me something that complex would ultimately be debunked by Occam's Razor. I don't care how many charts he threw up, I don't care what latest version of "Ricardian Equivalence" he was using, let alone the empirical data to prove it, in the end if you step back and look at it, it was nothing more than a pastor using the bible to further confirm Christianity. In otherwords, economics has becomes so focused on itself as a study, has put on such horse-blinders, its clergy has lost sight of its original and more important goal and now study it for its own sake.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand (or disprove some things about) economics, I argue going backwards. I argue going outside the study. I argue applying some basic, simple logic and factual testing to see if this increasingly complex "field" even makes sense anymore or is merely a circle jerk for wanna-be mathematicians just like religion is for most clergymen.
For example, a simple question I have, is WWII the only data point the Keynesianism can point to in history where it worked? And if so, why the hell did we base the entire western world's governance and economic policies on something so ill-tested?
Another, precisely whose brilliant idea was it that government should intervene period? Who precisely died and made you economic king giving you authority to "provide incentives" or "boost demand curves?" Since when was it the government's and politician's responsibility to MANAGE people? (I'll tell you who. One sick, power-hungry, totalitarian, that's who).
And though I am certainly very political, shouldn't we be concerned when the likes of Krugman call Republicans racist or we start claiming that 100% purely politically moves such as "diversity" have some kind of inherent value? i.e. - why is politics allowed to enter, let alone corrupt economists and their views?
I could go on, but these simple questions are identical to the basic, logical questions we need to ask (but aren't allowed to) of religion.
First, where's your proof of god? Oh, you don't have any? Then why with the threatening of little children with hell?
Second, explain to me the guy on the plank of wood and the snake in Suzie Jone's desk?
Third, did Adam have a belly button?
And fourth, how is stealing money from productive people and giving it to parasitic people a "winning" long term and sustainable economic strategy?
In the end, if you reverse the economic argument you'll see our modern day economists are no different than those "idiot" clergymen they mock for having equally idiotic, fanciful, and self-serving beliefs.
Enjoy the decline.