(in progress)(note to self) Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and

(in progress)(note to self)

Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and Economists in your opinion?” — Jose R. Alzaibar

1. UNSCIENTIFIC (INCOMPLETE)

Well, I’ll try to do a better job than Nassim Taleb at making a similar point, and say that to testify that you speak truthfully, and that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, for the purpose of committing fraud, economists would have to provide the following warranties of due diligence of their propositions:

a) categorical consistency (identity)

b) logical consistency (internal consistency)

c) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

d) existential possibility (operational descriptions) *praxeological*

e) moral possibility (consisting of voluntary transfers)

f) limits, full accounting, and parsimony (fully accounted)

In economics, except in rare circumstances, only a,b,c are ever vaguely satisfied. item (d) is almost never satisfied, and (e) is never satisfied, and they seem to be not even aware of the importance of (f).

Now, regarding (d), existential possibility, in the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, we only know that the universe equilibrates fully at all times, and therefore, that mathematics can be used to precisely model phenomenon that we observe. At some point we hope to know the first principles of the universe, and once we do, we can test our theories by operational construction from first principles. So in the physical sciences we must run tests and rely upon mathematical equilibrium (so-called ‘perfect symmetry’) and upon determinism (the result of the production of perfect symmetry via perfect equilibrium) as the test of our theories.

Also, regarding (e), moral possibility, the universe does not have the choice of acting morally and preserving the incentive to cooperate, or immorally to hinder the incentive to cooperate. The universe is amoral, and we do not cooperate with it, we are merely subject to its laws.

So (d) existential possibility, by tested by operational construction and (e) moral possibility, tested by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited externalities of the same criteria, are not properties we can yet (d), or ever shall (e), ask one another to warranty that one has done due diligence to test prior to testifying (stating) any theory.

But when making statements in economics (the monetary measurement of cooperation), social sciences (the categorical study of cooperation), and the institutional method of existence of cooperation: habit, norm, ethics, morals, law, tradition, ritual, and mythos – we can both test (d) existential possibility and (e) moral possibility.

The reason being that we know the first principles of human behavior through subjective testing of incentives (‘understanding the other person’s incentives’). and we must know that because without an understanding of intentions and incentives we could neither cooperate, nor reward one another for cooperation, nor punish one another for actions that inhibit cooperation. We could not form juries which depend entirely upon the ascertainment of intentions and incentives. The pre-cooperative creature finds safety in numbers, mating in numbers, information in numbers, but merely seizes opportunities amidst competitive threats within the limits of the creature’s range of perception and action. They do not cooperate. To cooperate requires a sympathetic transfer of intention between individuals.

So, since man is a rational actor in the pursuit of his desires and following his incentives – even at the extremes of mental disability, if we can ascertain a sequence of events and actions, each of which we can subjectively test as ‘reasonably rational’, then we can construct a recipe (sequence of events) under which the individual’s actions are ethical, moral, and possible – or not.

Now we come to (f), the determination of limits, parsimony, and full accounting. And these tests demonstrate the troublesome difference between our warranty of due diligence of the physical universe and our warranty of due diligence in cooperation. That is that the universe perfectly equilibrates because it must, and man does not perfectly equilibrate *because he must not.* And in that difference we find the opposite importance between mathematics of perfect symmetry in the physical universe, and operational construction in in the universe of human cooperation.

So, mainstream

(…how man always bends objective ethics and morals to accommodate current distributions of ability…)

2. SELF CONFIRMING SELECTION BIAS INSTEAD OF FULL ACCOUNTING

3. TRUTH (SCIENCE, FACILITATION,EUGENICS) VS FALSEHOOD (INTERFERENCE/FRAUD/DYSGENICS)

Different camps possess different levels of confidence (arrogance).

(a) social science (Austrian – positive externality) long term.

(b) rule of law (freshwater – balanced externality) medium term.

(c) rule by discretion (saltwater – negative externality) short term.

So the conservative movement practices social science, the rule of law movement practices good government, and the rule by discretion movement practices what they consider the most immediately human (arbitrary) discretion.

Different camps favor families and capital construction and others favor individual consumption.

Different camps are more comfortable interfering with planning and contract, and others are less comfortable interfering with planning an contract.

4. REPRODUCTIVE TIME PREFERENCE, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

(a) Parasites encourage consumption by the host, and then move to a new host.

(b) Members insure one another against extraordinary hardships.

(c) People subject the population to constant culling in pursuit of constant improvement.

5. UNIVERSALISM

6. DYSGENIC, DECIVILIZING, DEVOLUTIONARY