I have through the years encountered explanations of economic concepts that I do not understand. Moreover, I have met other people who also do not understand.
What are these mainstream economists motivated by?
I would guess a large part of their motivation is that they are perceived as more intelligent -- or at least they perceive themselves as more intelligent.
When these future mainstream economists first are met with abstract mainstream economic concepts, they -- for the most part at least -- do not get it. They are hesitant to admit this, however. They take it as a challenge to understand these concepts themselves. When they do understand, they feel like they have been accepted to the exclusive group of people who do understand, and they feel a lot more intelligent than those who do not understand.
That these abstract concepts is subordinate to their feeling of superiority. After all, they understand some abstract concepts and models, and how these explain reality. Lots of other people don't.
What do you think?
That's not really fair....afterall, do you extend such criticisms to the rest of science? Should all of science ensure that it's theorems be understandable to the layman? Are they merely being elitist when they're not?
I don't really understand quantum mechanics but I would not call such physicists of being elitist, of trying to maintain an air of superiority over the common man.
I would suggest this element is more or less present in other fields too, yes.
It is perhaps not so much a conscious phenomenon -- mostly subconscious. And I believe there is a danger in all fields to be so "swallowed" by the theory that one is more or less disconnected from reality.
Much like there is a division of labor in economics, there is a division of intellect. Take for example the Mises Institute itself:
- Roderick Long: Philosophy ( Likes Aristotelian logic)
-Thomas Woods: History ( Likes Teddy Roosevelt and Antebellum period)
-Murray Rothbard: Hybrid mix of History/Economics (Loved talking about post-millennialists and money)
-Thomas DiLorenzo: Economics with some history (Like Hamilton, Lincoln and Regulatory systems)
There are many more authors and their interests however this should suffice to what I am pointing out. We naturally accumulate knowledge about subjects that interest us or play to our strengths. Perhaps it is best to be a renassiance man and know all fields but we should not expect this from all.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Fried Egg:That's not really fair....afterall, do you extend such criticisms to the rest of science? Should all of science ensure that it's theorems be understandable to the layman? Are they merely being elitist when they're not?
Perhaps not, but there is an aspect of modern economics that is I would say unnecessarily complicated. For example the whole idea of indifference. It's moronic. You can't make a choice based on indifference. You can make a choice based on criteria the person studying your choice might not be aware of, and it's pure hubris for that observer to then say that because of the epistimological limits on his ability to conduct study, you must have decided based on indifference. But that is in fact one of the things modern economists do. They are true ivory tower dwellers with their heads firmly rammed up their theories so tightly that any deviation means the world is to blame for not adhering to their precious models.
Also, to draw an anology, modern economics is kind of like what would happen if political favor swung heavy to the intelligent design side of things and scientists went with that trend, finding justification for what they previously said was dogmatic BS. In a way they're not to blame, everyone follows the money to some extent or another. But modern economists often believe what they do, whether they realize it or not, because that's the belief that draws money, especially from politicians. If a downturn hits, there's no money or prestige in telling the president of the US, "Sorry, you and the Fed screwed up and now we have to wait this out." Earlier generations of economists traded truth for livelihoods and political favor, and modern economists live off that sacrifice to this day.
And it all comes down to one thing in my mind too: unless you're an entrepreneur, there's no need to predict the economy with any accuracy unless you're trying to centrally manage it. Appropos, the resources dedicated to figuring out econometrics like GDP were initially inspired by the 'need' to manage our economy during war time. One might think that alone would lead a person to suspect the process and study based upon it. But, if that initial goal in generally in line with how you think to begin with, well you might be drawn to a certain school of thought within economics. To paraphrase Sean Corrigan, for us Austrians living in the modern economic world is a constant challenge of articulating heretical thoughts using a foreign language in the framework of a hostile epistimology.
The over complicated nature of modern economics is the direct result of past economists seeking favor with a war mongering state and, after having allowed their expertise to be used in the killing of millions, using their methods and ideas to project their war time stature into peace time for purposes of personal prestige and income. Just as with lawyers contaminating common law and turning what should be a simple code of laws understandable to anyone who speaks and reads the native language into a monstrosity of legalese that ensures their continued employment at ridiculous rates, so have economists played the jargon hand when, in the end, the truth of the field isn't too hard to understand at all. Instead of legalese they employed calculus and statistics. Lots of fancy math and gobbledeegoock meant to hide the logic and simplicity inherrent to the field.
People become invested in their endeavor. The more invested and more institutionalized, therefore, actual material structures built up around a person(s) and/or theory the more difficult such an investment submits to change even in the face of surmounting anomalies. For example, how many aids and/or subordinates have jobs tied to such a person or interest groups tied to him or her that he or she monetarily has to keep debating or experimenting to continue any funding or wage, etc... The mainstream economics is not any one person, but is an active establishment that has weaved a web in government, some businesses, and public schools (textbooks and more), etc...
Thomas Kuhn who wrote a book entitled "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" discusses this. He therefore came up with the concepts of paradigm shift and much else including redefining the concept paradigm in the way that it is contemporarily used as quoted from here:
"Historian of science Thomas Kuhn gave this word paradigm its contemporary meaning when he adopted it to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time. Kuhn himself came to prefer the terms exemplar and normal science, which have more exact philosophical meanings. However, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:
Alternatively, the Oxford English Dictionary defines paradigm as "a pattern or model, an exemplar." Thus an additional component of Kuhn's definition of paradigm is:
Thus, within normal science, the paradigm is the set of exemplary experiments that are likely to be copied or emulated. The prevailing paradigm often represents a more specific way of viewing reality, or limitations on acceptable programs for future research, than the much more general scientific method..." etc.
-----
The military is usually seen as one of the most agile societies acting as a whole and thus why the nature of tyrannical political cultures appear militaristic. Individuals, though, can change course on a thoughts notice and thus why free-thinking endangers any establishments efforts. Deductively this is also why societies that base it's premise on individuals are more open to change, but to change the whole of society in a voluntary manner may take time. This need for patience frustrates would-be dictators.
xahrx: Perhaps not, but there is an aspect of modern economics that is I would say unnecessarily complicated. For example the whole idea of indifference. It's moronic. You can't make a choice based on indifference. You can make a choice based on criteria the person studying your choice might not be aware of, and it's pure hubris for that observer to then say that because of the epistimological limits on his ability to conduct study, you must have decided based on indifference. But that is in fact one of the things modern economists do. They are true ivory tower dwellers with their heads firmly rammed up their theories so tightly that any deviation means the world is to blame for not adhering to their precious models.
I'm a critic of mathematical economics too, but this is an example where Austrians get worked up for no reason. The idea of indifference is really just common sense. Think of accepting a job with a certain amount of risk. You might consider taking a higher risk job if it pays more. At some point, there is a wage that is just enough for you to accept the higher risk job. At that point you would be indifferent between the two -- no one claims that being at the exact point of indifference is empirically relevant.
'indifference' in the manner in whih you describe it Rooster is irrelevent to economic understanding. as such it counts as adding in useless detritus, like definitions that 'the moon is cheese', it hardly matters whether you are right or wrong, since you wont be deriving any truth about economics from it, it has nothing to do with economics. cut away with Occam's Razor, slice slice.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Rooster:At some point, there is a wage that is just enough for you to accept the higher risk job.
Then you prefer the higher risk job.