----- Original Message ---- From: Peter Ward <nevadabob at hotmail.co.uk>
Well, I'd regard so called economics, of whatever school, a quack science. I'm not sure even deserving of being considered a primitive science like historic astrology. That serious attempts are never made to test theory against reality implies inherent dishonesty and cannot be excused as mere ignorance (this is typically avoided by concocting a metaphysical distinction between natural science and economics unfortunately the claimed distinction is groundless).
I [WS:] Amen!
However, I would not dismiss it as mere quackery. It plays an important, from the ruling class's point of view, social role - legitimation of authority (corporate bosses, banks and government policy makers.) In the pre-modern times, that role was played by theology, but in this supposedly "rational" age theological justifications do not get much traction.
Please note that both theology and economics are "rational" in a very specific sense - namely logically coherent with certain assumptions accepted on faith. Empirical verification (or rather falsification) is not a part of validating theological or economic propositions - and this is not coincidental. Empirical science is necessarily probabilistic and contingent, which makes it poorly suited for legitimating authority. If the purported powers of authority figures were subjected to empirical testing, that would quickly lead to their questioning. However, if the pronouncements of authority figures like, say, Greenspan are justified by a system of logical inferences rather than empirical tests, they are infallible, just like the catholic pope is.
Wojtek