Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I think calling it 'reality-based economics' is a start. After that it gets more complicated - but as a goal to aim for, I think it's worth considering as a beginning.

I certainly do, too.  But your comment brings up a very, very difficult issue:  When we have two or more conflicting versions of what is "really real".  I think conservatives will argue just as forcefully that they desire -- and already do espouse -- a reality-based economics.  And when you point out to them that "if something is unsustainable, you will run out of it," they will say, "Actually it is sustainable.  Here, read this study by Professor Greenhousewarmingisnothappening, and this study by Professor Oilwillalwaysbeplentiful."

One of my best friends from college, whose intellect I hold in very high respect, is convinced that global warming is a myth (the non-reality-based kind.)  He points to several studies written by various professors challening global warming, and most of all he points to the cyclical nature of ice-ages and warming in earth's history.  Doesn't he have the same right as you to develop an economic theory based on his own version of reality?

In the end, I believe our myths must be as close to scientifically valid as possible, but we must be aware that grounding our economics and our myths in "reality" and science will not in and of itself be enough.  In addition to communicating myths to the public, we will have to back up those myths with the scientific evidence that we choose to make our own reality -- and hope that the public will adopt those scientific theories as their reality, too.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 02:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

afew 4


Occasional Series