Economics is Pseudo-Science Part 1

Economics is Pseudo-Science – Part 1, Capitalism’s Psychic Hotline
Last week I recorded Stan Goff reading his eight part essay entitled “Economics is Pseudo-Science”. He’s using this audio for a workshop he’s conducting and plans on handing out all this audio to the class before hand on CD. I’ll be Podcasting all eight parts. This mp3 is number one of eight. Enjoy!

MP3 3m 32s 1.6MB 64kbps

Here is the first paragraph to wet your whistle:
“Psuedo-science, or fake science posing as real science, is commonly used to bewilder the public. We have all seen examples of it. Decoys with scientific credentials are hired by big energy companies to produce scientific-sounding reports that claim to prove there is no such thing as global warming. Many who want to deny that oil production will soon diminish have been attracted to a complex and completely unsupportable notion called biotic oil, that suggest oil actually grows in the earth like a mushroom far. Right-wing religious activists, in their war on the science of biology have come up with a crackpot theory called “intelligent design” that purports to disprove the overwhelmingly supported theory of natural selection, sometimes called evolution. In a few cases, pseudo-science is just a product of delusion, based on people’s attraction for what they want to believe when the real deal is not particularly pleasant. But in most cases, pseudo-science is put out in support of an agenda. It is created and passed around to fool the public, so something can be put over on us.”
Stan Goff

One thought on “Economics is Pseudo-Science Part 1”

  1. Hello, Brian. Nice mix of text and and audio to intrigue us. I’m just frustrated I can’t hear the entire recording now, but that’s better than being bored. Anyway, as a veteran follower of technology, may I say how much I enjoyed the Goff audio.

    I can recall economists’ arguing that bandwidth should be far more strictly metered than it has been. Just think where the Net would be if individual users hadn’t been free to experiment within bounds and invent new technologies that justified the R&D investment to drive down costs. How primitive we’d all be if the meaner of the economists had reigned supreme. Why, we might all be poking along with 28.8Kbps. Too many economists are less interested in advancement of technology than in advancement of regulation for their benefactors.

    Now we’re up against the same mindset in the area of intellectual property. The world would be better off if we worried less about “efficiency” and more about the good of society as a whole. As an illustration of this, see Sick on the Great Plains: The perils of “efficient” information policies.

    Two caveat: First, exceptions exist among economists; you can’t write off an entire discipline. Second, I speak only as a layman. I have not undertaken a formal study to document my belief–apparently shared by Goff–that so many economists are either myopic or whores or mixes of the two. I can only go by general impressions from afar.

    Still, I can think of something much worse the present reality of government by lawyers, and I don’t have to leave you guessing. It’s government by economists. Too bad we have so much regulation by them.

Comments are closed.