About Skeptinomics
"A skeptical
perspective of politics and economics"
Skeptinomics strives to provide alternative and, yes, skeptical
views on politics and economics – views that may better reflect what
can be observed and experienced by ordinary folks rather than the
standard mass media interpretation.
Media coverage of things economic is predicated in the assumption
that economic theory is truly representative of the economy, and
that economists are expert in describing and predicting things
related to the economy. This has yet to be proven. The only evidence
to support this notion is provided by the claims of economists
themselves – a circular argument that is lacking in several areas.
Economic theory has some basic failings that relate back to its
underlying assumptions. Any theory based on assumptions is at its
root assumption, not theory. Those familiar with Occam’s Razor will
understand the limitations presented by introducing a bunch of
unnecessary assumptions. While such assumptions may be useful for
mathematical modeling or some other purpose, reality does not have
to conform. Another key problem with economics is that in some areas
it is inconsistent with itself. As an example, macroeconomic
measurement of imports and exports is not consistent with currency
exchange principles.
As to politics, most of what you see and hear in the established
media represents the perspective of the established elites and their
focus tends to be in line with what suits their purposes. We don’t
see a lot of coverage that represents what might be good for the
majority, or what the majority might want. After all, in a democracy
the majority has the right to be wrong.
Rather than parrot the elitist view, we take a skeptical look in a
way that considers what might be best, or at least better, for
ordinary people – you know, the majority who keep the system going.
We also strive to explain things in terms of how they might really
affect ordinary people. A systematic approach is used – using
various "systems" concepts and principles. The key ones being that
systems always do what they were designed to do, and that you can
tell what a system was designed to do by observing what it does.
These are very important concepts for us all to remember.
We take an egalitarian approach – the elites have lots of advocates,
so we endeavour to balance the scales in favour of the ordinary
person.
About the Author/Editor
Following my
Dad’s advice: Don’t believe all of what you hear, and half of what
you see
I will provide a brief description that I am sure will offer lots of
fodder to those whom I offend (economists for the most part), but no
matter. They are a thin-skinned bunch who do not take any criticism
of their trade well.
I was born in a small town in
I went to university later in life primarily to study economics. My
goal originally was to eventually get a PhD in economics. But, the
more I studied economics, the more I found it did not jive with what
I had learned in the real world operating a business. This is also
where I got my first experience as to how intransigent economists
can be and how reluctant they are to consider alternative ideas that
might be more in line with reality. Years later I saw a great
description of the field of economics written by Taleb in The
Black Swan where he described the whole area in unflattering
terms that coincided with my views.
I shrugged my shoulders and completed a PhD in engineering. My main
area can be described as the design and operation of complex
systems. The focus here is real systems rather than theoretical
constructs. Because I have a love of studying real economic things
as opposed to economic theory, I naturally applied some basic
"systems" concepts to examine the divergence between economic theory
and observable reality. The line that applies here is one I saw
somewhere: "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in
practice, they aren’t."
When theory and practice do not line up, it is usually better to
adjust the theory. Economics takes a different view. They try to
alter the description of the reality to suit the theory. But, if you
take a good look at all things academic you will find this approach
not so unusual. I never
lost track of my humble beginnings. I understand the value and
importance of ordinary people who do all those seemingly
insignificant things that add up to all that we have. The world
would go right on without all the high-end folks and celebrities,
but without the ordinary person the whole thing would collapse. I
have a vision for a world where ordinary people get their share of
things, and especially the recognition they deserve. I value things
like freedom, true democracy and a better life for all, not just
those at the top. I do not like elites or those who seek power. As
we all know, power corrupts, so it is axiomatic that those who seek
it are already corrupt or will become so. That is why power should
remain with the people, and why I value democracy – true democracy
rather than the faux democracy we now have.
A critical point: it is of no value just to complain about what is
wrong, possible solutions have to be offered as well.
A major inspiration in my life was Buckminster Fuller – a man
of vision who sought to leave a better world than he found. The key
point I remember was his advice to design your work to benefit the
maximum number of people.
That is what I strive to do.
Barry McIntyre