Restriction of Economics forum to Mainstream Economics

KomradeBishop

Due to recent mod action by andrew on the Economics forum, I contacted him by PM to challenge the mod action (note: this thread is not about the mod action - which is outside the scope of Feedback - but about the following[noparse]:[/noparse]), and andrew replied to me stating that the forum is being restricted to represent only mainstream economics - which represents the Neoclassical school of economics.

This is explicit censorship of economic views that don't match mainstream economics, and by-proxy if Boards were to accept this, this would represent the position of Boards as well.

There are a very wide variety of different economic schools, from Austrian, Post-Keynesian, Marxist, Neoclassical among more (the first 3 would become restricted from the Economics forum) - and there is no one single school of economics, which represents Economics as a profession and as an academic course (Irish Economics professor, Stephen Kinsella for instance, identifies as Post-Keynesian), and no single school of economics, which there is consensus as having the upper-hand empirically/evidence-wise.

So trying to restrict the Economics forum to mainstream (i.e. neoclassical) economics, is a very big deal. That would be explicit censorship of many economic views which are perfectly legitimate and which may have a lot of evidence backing them, just because they are from a different ideological school - this represents a type of political censorship.

There is nothing in the Economics charter stating that the forum should be restricted to these views, it all seems to be at the whim of one moderator - or maybe more, since I don't know what may have been discussed behind the scenes.

Tom Dunne

So now in addition to Boards.ie being anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-lgbt, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-Fianna Fail, anti-Fianne Gael, anti-Labour, anti-Sinn Fein, anti-teacher, anti-Garda, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Cork, anti-Limerick, anti-anyone-outside-the-pale, anti-cyclist, anti-anti-water charges, anti-free speech, it is now anti-non-neoclassical economics?

Duly noted.

Black Swan

Hi KomradeBishop. I am gathering information regarding the issue you have raised here in order to better understand and resolve it. Would you please forward to me any recent PM communications that you have had that directly relates to it? Thanks, Black Swan.

Walter Bishop

Tom Dunne wrote: »

So now in addition to Boards.ie being anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-lgbt, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-Fianna Fail, anti-Fianne Gael, anti-Labour, anti-Sinn Fein, anti-teacher, anti-Garda, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Cork, anti-Limerick, anti-anyone-outside-the-pale, anti-cyclist, anti-anti-water charges, anti-free speech, it is now anti-non-neoclassical economics?

Duly noted.

Incredibly helpful. Really makes using the Feedback forum worth it.

_Tombstone_

Mod making quiet forum even quieter.

Bad job.

KomradeBishop

Tom Dunne wrote: »

So now in addition to Boards.ie being anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-lgbt, anti-Muslim, anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-Fianna Fail, anti-Fianne Gael, anti-Labour, anti-Sinn Fein, anti-teacher, anti-Garda, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Cork, anti-Limerick, anti-anyone-outside-the-pale, anti-cyclist, anti-anti-water charges, anti-free speech, it is now anti-non-neoclassical economics?

Duly noted.

Not one of those things, apart from restriction of non-mainstream-economics, has been explicitly declared by a mod, as unwelcome to a forum.

When a mod declares that something is restricted from a forum - especially an Economics forum restricting discussion of an extremely wide array of academic economics, to one narrow ideology - that's a big deal, especially with how it represents a type of political censorship.

I haven't encountered a more explicit declaration of censorship on Boards myself. This is not someone with just a hunch or vague feeling of potential mod bias, this a mod himself explicitly stating that non-mainstream-economic views are unwelcome.

andrew

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Due to recent mod action by andrew on the Economics forum, I contacted him by PM to challenge the mod action (note: this thread is not about the mod action - which is outside the scope of Feedback - but about the following[noparse]:[/noparse]), and andrew replied to me stating that the forum is being restricted to represent only mainstream economics - which represents the Neoclassical school of economics.

This is explicit censorship of economic views that don't match mainstream economics, and by-proxy if Boards were to accept this, this would represent the position of Boards as well.

There are a very wide variety of different economic schools, from Austrian, Post-Keynesian, Marxist, Neoclassical among more (the first 3 would become restricted from the Economics forum) - and there is no one single school of economics, which represents Economics as a profession and as an academic course (Irish Economics professor, Stephen Kinsella for instance, identifies as Post-Keynesian), and no single school of economics, which there is consensus as having the upper-hand empirically/evidence-wise.

So trying to restrict the Economics forum to mainstream (i.e. neoclassical) economics, is a very big deal. That would be explicit censorship of many economic views which are perfectly legitimate and which may have a lot of evidence backing them, just because they are from a different ideological school - this represents a type of political censorship.

There is nothing in the Economics charter stating that the forum should be restricted to these views, it all seems to be at the whim of one moderator - or maybe more, since I don't know what may have been discussed behind the scenes.

You misunderstand the extent to which schools of thought are still relevant in Economics (they are, but not nearly as much as you think), and within that, don’t have any understanding of what is relevant to the discipline today.

Economics as I understand it (judge for yourself whether my having Economics degrees is relevant here, and no this is not an example of an appeal to authority) has settled more upon a methodology more than any one school, a methodology which models economic phenomena mathematically, and then uses statistics to analyse those models. It is through this methodology that ‘competing’ (and I use that term lightly) schools of economics are analysed today, and your (incorrect) assertion that the only school of economics taught today is Neoclassical economics (or that I’d only want posts about Neoclassical economics) arises from the fact that the neoclassical school heavily emphasised the modelling approach in addition to having neoclassical theories of how people behave.

I think it’s fair enough to broadly limit discussion to mainstream economics which conforms to that methodology as taught in pretty much any Undergraduate or Postgraduate Economics course. Any forum needs a basis for discussion (priors), and I think it’s pretty reasonable that the Economics forum takes as its basis the metholody and priors used in academia in general. Without that common basis, it is pretty difficult to have a discussion about anything at all, as every Economics question which people post becomes a thread about the priors which underpin that question, and not about that question itself, as the post which I reprimanded you for shows.

Obviously, there is a grey area in terms of where the line is drawn and what and whether a discussion is or is not ‘valid’. That’s why I’ve let many of your posts up until that one go. But answering a question about supply curves with a response which essentially says that the OP’s confusion is due to the fact that supply and demand analysis isn’t valid is well beyond that line, in addition to being completely wrong. Ultimately, I figure it’s the mod’s job to make that judgement call, so I did.

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Mod making quiet forum even quieter.

Bad job.

I agree that the forum is too slow (though I’d note it has never had more than about 3 active posters, especially following the introduction of the Irish Economy forum). I don’t think that increasing traffic by lowering posting standards is a good solution to that problem, on the basis that bad economics which furthers misconceptions and is wrong, is actively bad and worse than a smaller amount of decent quality economics. I’m open to suggestions as to how to improve traffic while maintaining quality.

KomradeBishop

I didn't assert that the only school of economics taught is Neoclassical. Mainstream economics does represent neoclassical economics though.

It is not really disputable, that mainstream economics refers largely to neoclassical economics (as per link above) - and that by restricting the forum to mainstream economics, you would rule out heterodox economics - which encompasses a huge and widely varying amount of economic thought, including that which is well-backed with solid empirical evidence.

Heterodox schools of economic thought (e.g. Austrian - funny that I'm also actually defending Libertarians here - Post-Keynesian, Marxist, ecological economics etc.), have plenty of representation in academia - despite being in the minority - and there is no justification in attempting to exclude discussion of them from the forum; that would be censorship (of a highly political kind), as they most definitely are covered/represented, as being a part of the Economics field.


For instance, what you are proposing would rule out discussion of someone like Steve Keen (whose arguments I used as a basis for a mod-actioned post) - a heterodox Post-Keynesian economist, who is a professor at and head of the economics department at Kingston University in London (hosting undergraduate/postgraduate courses on economics) - he is also one of the most accredited economists around where it comes to having predicted the economic crisis long in advance, and is one of the most vocal critics of mainstream economics - someone with very solid credentials.

This thread on economics, regarding bank money creation is also an example of something that has gone from being a Heterodox economic view (which it still was at the time I posted it), to one which is now becoming mainstream - your standard would also exclude discussion of issues like that.


Again: This is not about the mod action on the forum, so I don't want that to become a focus, this is about the intent to limit the range of discussion on Economics, to mainstream economics - which definitely is dominated by neoclassical economics.

You are not an authority on what is relevant to Economics as a discipline, and there are plenty of other economists with credentials more than good enough to compete with your own (like above), who disagree with your view here.

This appears to be explicit and direct censorship of heterodox economic views - views which have representation in academic economics, backed by well known economics professors, which makes them perfectly applicable to the forum - and with your evident bias here (your intent to limit/censor valid discussion - and using your mod position to assert, without argument, that views you disagree with and which have representation among academic economists, are wrong and not suitable for the forum), I'd say your unsuitable as mod of the forum.

andrew

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I didn't assert that the only school of economics taught is Neoclassical. Mainstream economics does represent neoclassical economics though. It is not really disputable, that mainstream economics refers largely to neoclassical economics (as per link above)

Not even the wiki page you linked supports that argument. As it says "It has been associated with neoclassical economics" which, as I explained, is due to it's methodology as much as anything else.

It is not really disputable, that mainstream economics refers largely to neoclassical economics (as per link above) - and that by restricting the forum to mainstream economics, you would rule out heterodox economics - which encompasses a huge and widely varying amount of economic thought, including that which is well-backed with solid empirical evidence.

If heterodox economics was well backed and had solid empirical evidence... it wouldn't be heterodox. In the same way that alternative medicine which works isn't called alternative medicine, it's just called medicine.

Heterodox schools of economic thought (e.g. Austrian - funny that I'm also actually defending Libertarians here - Post-Keynesian, Marxist, ecological economics etc.), have plenty of representation in academia - despite being in the minority - and there is no justification in attempting to exclude discussion of them from the forum; that would be censorship (of a highly political kind), as they most definitely are covered/represented, as being a part of the Economics field.

They don't have plenty of representation in academia, they're in a very (small) minority, as you admit. Why do you think that is?

For instance, what you are proposing would rule out discussion of someone like Steve Keen (whose arguments I used as a basis for a mod-actioned post) - a heterodox Post-Keynesian economist, who is a professor at and head of the economics department at Kingston University in London (hosting undergraduate/postgraduate courses on economics) - he is also one of the most accredited economists around where it comes to having predicted the economic crisis long in advance, and is one of the most vocal critics of mainstream economics - someone with very solid credentials.

The existence of heterodox economists is of course a precondition for the existence of heterodox economics, so I'm not surprised you can find people who hold those views. Credentialed indivduals supporting fringe views is nothing new and I'm sure you could find a biology Phd somewhere who doesn't believe in evolution; the existence of Steve Keen doesn't prove anything except to demonstrate that there is at least one economist who agrees with you. If you want to play the numbers game, as you admit yourself the numbers are on my side.

This thread on economics, regarding bank money creation is also an example of something that has gone from being a Heterodox economic view (which it still was at the time I posted it), to one which is now becoming mainstream - your standard would also exclude discussion of issues like that.

If my standard would exclude discussion of issues like that then I would have excluded it. Clearly, since it's in the economics forum and has been left open, my standard wouldn't include threads like that. Like I said, there's a grey area which is being accomodated.

You are not an authority on what is relevant to Economics as a discipline, and there are plenty of other economists with credentials more than good enough to compete with your own (like above), who disagree with your view here.

I'd hazard to guess that there are probably far more Economists with credentials better than my own who'd agree with me, something you admitted yourself when you said heterodox economists are in the minority.
I'm not claiming to be an authority on what is relevant to Economics as a discipline, just on what's relevant to the Economics forum here (noting of course that I'm not the only mod).

This appears to be explicit and direct censorship of heterodox economic views - views which have representation in academic economics, backed by well known economics professors, which makes them perfectly applicable to the forum - and with your evident bias here (your intent to limit/censor valid discussion - and using your mod position to assert, without argument, that views you disagree with and which have representation among academic economists, are wrong and not suitable for the forum), I'd say your unsuitable as mod of the forum.

I provided an argument via PM as to why the answer which kicked this off was wrong (with citations, I'd add), and I've provided arguments here too, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

KomradeBishop

The wiki page I linked does support my view of Mainstream Economics being defined as neoclassical - it says:

During the Great Depression and the following Second World War, the school of Keynesian economics gained prominence, which built on the work of the underconsumptionist school, and present-day mainstream economics stems from the neoclassical synthesis, which was the post–World War II merger of Keynesian macroeconomics and neoclassical microeconomics.

andrew wrote: »

If heterodox economics was well backed and had solid empirical evidence... it wouldn't be heterodox. In the same way that alternative medicine which works isn't called alternative medicine, it's just called medicine.

What we can take from what you say here is this: Regardless of your view of the term Mainstream Economics, you intend to explicitly exclude heterodox economics from the Economics forum. That is explicit censorship - and a very political kind of censorship.

You are also engaging in the argument ad populum fallacy here - any scientist will tell you, that just because a view is in the minority and is not presently the consensus view, does not mean that view is wrong and neither does it mean, that it is unbacked by empirical evidence.

As proof of this, the view that banks create money when they make loans, is a Heterodox view (and was definitely not mainstream, at the time I created that thread) - it is well backed by empirical evidence for the best part of a century, yet it is only now slowly becoming mainstream.

andrew wrote: »

They don't have plenty of representation in academia, they're in a very (small) minority, as you admit. Why do you think that is?

The existence of heterodox economists is of course a precondition for the existence of heterodox economics, so I'm not surprised you can find people who hold those views. Credentialed indivduals supporting fringe views is nothing new and I'm sure you could find a biology Phd somewhere who doesn't believe in evolution; the existence of Steve Keen doesn't prove anything except to demonstrate that there is at least one economist who agrees with you. If you want to play the numbers game, as you admit yourself the numbers are on my side.

You use Argument-ad-populum here to try and present all Heterodox views as wrong - again, this is a fallacious argument, making your comparison between Heterodox economics and people who don't believe in evolution or who believe in alternative medicine, also fallacious - the merit or not of Heterodox views, is determined by evaluating their individual arguments and the evidence supporting them, not by using fallacious forms of argument.

This is not about playing 'a numbers game' either - and nowhere did I state that it was - this is about what counts as being a part of the academic Economics field; I've provided more than enough proof to show that the views you want to censor, are a part of and have plenty of representation in the Economics field (which is true regardless of them being a minority) - and nowhere does the economics forum charter, state a limitation to only mainstream/neoclassical economics.

andrew wrote: »

If my standard would exclude discussion of issues like that then I would have excluded it. Clearly, since it's in the economics forum and has been left open, my standard wouldn't include threads like that. Like I said, there's a grey area which is being accomodated.

This is an inconsistent and self-serving argument, which allows you to censor whatever Heterodox views you like, and then when a provably Heterodox view (as this thread definitely is) has enough empirical proof to establish its credibility, that then allows you to pretend "well it isn't really heterodox if I didn't action it...". That's a complete cop-out, and is entirely inconsistent.

andrew wrote: »

I provided an argument via PM as to why the answer which kicked this off was wrong (with citations, I'd add), and I've provided arguments here too, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I've explicitly stated this is not about the mod action, but about the intention to censor Economics. You were branding all Heterodox views as wrong, without argument - and now you're only presenting a fallacious 'Argument ad populum' argument, to try and back that

Lovely Bloke

Andrew, can you be as succint and lay-friendly as possible and say why you think

1. you, as mod, should have the final say on whether a school of economics should be discussed or not in the forum

2. are the forms of economics you wish to disallow equivalent to, say, acupuncture is to conventional medicine? Should there be an "alternative economics" forum, in your view?

From the outside looking in here, it seems like you are restricting discussion in the Economics forum just because you find a certain type of Economics thinking to be disagreeable. Is that correct? If that is correct, then I don't think that's the role of a mod at all.

It seems a bit like the mod of the beer forum saying to the users that they can't discuss Craft Beer because it's not mainstream enough, and they can only discuss Budweiser, Carlsberg and Heineken because they are the most popular beers, and not enough people drink Craft Beer.

andrew

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Andrew, can you be as succint and lay-friendly as possible and say why you think

1. you, as mod, should have the final say on whether a school of economics should be discussed or not in the forum

Yes. For the same reason that a mod in say, the health issues forum, might have a right to say that discussion of acupuncture isn’t appropriate. Now maybe acupuncture is up for discussion in the health issues forum, but imagine a situation in which you have a poster who suggests that the entire health care profession is wrong and that every ailment can be cured with acupuncture or some alternative therapy, and you see the issue.

OP claims that heterodox views are nowhere near to being like alternative medicine and there’s actually lots of disagreement within Economics; this is the Economics equivalent of the whole ‘teach the controversy’ stuff that creationists come out with.

As an aside I’d note this standard isn’t actually particularly new for the Economics forum; the bit in the charter in relation to conspiracy theories’ is what I’m referring to here; the mods who drafted that charter weren’t nearly as tolerant as I am (as evidenced by their calling them conspiracy theories.)

2. are the forms of economics you wish to disallow equivalent to, say, acupuncture is to conventional medicine? Should there be an "alternative economics" forum, in your view?

In relation to the first part of that question, Yes.

In relation to the second part, if there’s enough demand for one I suppose. At the moment the issue is just with OP, so it’s hard to envisage there being that demand.

From the outside looking in here, it seems like you are restricting discussion in the Economics forum just because you find a certain type of Economics thinking to be disagreeable. Is that correct? If that is correct, then I don't think that's the role of a mod at all.

It seems a bit like the mod of the beer forum saying to the users that they can't discuss Craft Beer because it's not mainstream enough, and they can only discuss Budweiser, Carlsberg and Heineken because they are the most popular beers, and not enough people drink Craft Beer.

I understand your view, but I’d ask you to consider whetheryou’d have the same view if this was a thread in relation to any other sub-forumin the ‘science, health and environment’ category. This is not about beer oranything like it, this is about an academic field.

To answer your question, you’re correct to the extent thatsomeone in the health issues sciences forum might (legitimately in my eyes) finddiscussion of acupuncture disagreeable.

KomradeBishop

This is not at all comparable to saying 'the entire health care profession is wrong', or to promoting creationism/conspiracy-theories - you are again trying to portray all of Heterodox economics as being comparable to pseudo-scientific branches of others fields, yet this is an assertion without any argument backing it, without any evidence backing it, and which is largely just a smear.

The gall of that smear tbh (and coming from a mod)...even people arguing against creationists, present arguments and evidence refuting their views, you are just presenting a smear, with nothing supporting it.


What counts is this, and only this: Either views have evidence to support them, or they do not. Views being Heterdox, does not mean they are unsupported by evidence, as you try to claim (and backed only with the 'Argument ad populum' fallacy - which is pretty much paraphrased as: "because it's not mainstream it's wrong").

There are many Heterodox views which it's easy to show as having evidence supporting them - such as what I linked earlier and even the Bank of England supports - and many Mainstream views which it's easy to show as having evidence refuting them.

Views which have evidence supporting them, should not be excluded from the Economics forum, simply because they are Heterodox - that is censorship based purely on ideological grounds.


Here are a few other Heterodox economists - are they all as good as creationists in your eyes?
Dean Baker, James Kenneth Galbraith, and his late father John Kenneth Galbraith (serving in the administration of 4 different US presidents, and advisor to Kennedy, with many honours/awards), Kalecki (who is considered one of the founders of Post-Keynesian economics).

This is a ridiculous level of smearing and bias, for a moderator of a forum like Economics. You seem to view Mainstream economics as being so beyond criticism, that you want to completely censor any Heterodox views critical of it, and smear Heterodoxy entirely.


As for there being demand for a more-expansive discussion of Economics, not restricted to Mainstream views - while it is beyond the scope of this thread - there is plenty of support for that:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057313876

Lovely Bloke

Thanks Andrew for that post, good view from the mod side of it, and I think that on balance you are right to steer the discussion in that fashion.

However, the thread linked in KB's post (in Forum Requests) shows that there is certainly enough support for an alternative under the Forum Creation rules, but seeing as the Forum Requests are being ignored at the moment maybe it would be decent of you to allow at least some of the discussion topics that KB is looking for?

andrew

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is not at all comparable to saying 'the entire health care profession is wrong', or to promoting creationism/conspiracy-theories - you are again trying to portray all of Heterodox economics as being comparable to pseudo-scientific branches of others fields, yet this is an assertion without any argument backing it, without any evidence backing it, and which is largely just a smear.

The gall of that smear tbh (and coming from a mod)...even people arguing against creationists, present arguments and evidence refuting their views, you are just presenting a smear, with nothing supporting it.


What counts is this, and only this: Either views have evidence to support them, or they do not. Views being Heterdox, does not mean they are unsupported by evidence, as you try to claim (and backed only with the 'Argument ad populum' fallacy - which is pretty much paraphrased as: "because it's not mainstream it's wrong").

There are many Heterodox views which it's easy to show as having evidence supporting them - such as what I linked earlier and even the Bank of England supports - and many Mainstream views which it's easy to show as having evidence refuting them.

Views which have evidence supporting them, should not be excluded from the Economics forum, simply because they are Heterodox - that is censorship based purely on ideological grounds.


Here are a few other Heterodox economists - are they all as good as creationists in your eyes?
Dean Baker, James Kenneth Galbraith, and his late father John Kenneth Galbraith (serving in the administration of 4 different US presidents, and advisor to Kennedy, with many honours/awards), Kalecki (who is considered one of the founders of Post-Keynesian economics).

This is a ridiculous level of smearing and bias, for a moderator of a forum like Economics. You seem to view Mainstream economics as being so beyond criticism, that you want to completely censor any Heterodox views critical of it, and smear Heterodoxy entirely.


As for there being demand for a more-expansive discussion of Economics, not restricted to Mainstream views - while it is beyond the scope of this thread - there is plenty of support for that:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057313876

We're talking past each other here.

Go back over my original post. What I'm talking here is about having a common understanding over economic the general methodology and priors which we use to discuss Economics. This is a slightly nuanced distinction, all the more difficult to make given you don't have any Economics training and insist on making use of the 'schools of thought' framework which isn't a very good framework for analysing the field of Economics as it exists today, but which people seem reluctant to let go of.

Some of the 'heterodox' schools you mention, such as Austrian Economics, entirely reject the premise of economic analysis, rejecting empiricism and the like, rejecting the fundamentals of Economics as thought in any Introduction to Economics textbook. This is a fundamental methodological disagreement. A disagreement of this kind drove the post which kicked all this off - you basically rejected the idea of supply and demand analysis. This is the kind of fundamental disagreement which makes having a discussion about economics difficult, because it can turn any discussion into a discussion of methodological priors and beliefs, which ignoring the question at hand.

Some of the 'heterodox' schools you mention, perhaps post keynesianism (I don't know much about it to be honest) are very much under the aegis of 'Economics' given their adherence to the basic tenants and methodologies which mainstream economics uses. They are only 'heterodox' to the extent that their theories and conclusions aren't really well supported and (at least yet) tend not to match with the mainstream. In the grand scheme of things I'm OK with this, as evidenced by the fact that your MMT threads have stayed put. As you rightly point out, insights from these schools sometimes form part of the 'synthesis' which comprises Economics today (though you're confusing 'endogenous money' with 'banks create money'; they're not the same thing.)

Finally, some of some 'hetrodox' schools combine both an entirely different methodology, with results and conclusions which are unsupported, while having nuggets of truth that have been incorprated into the mainstram, Austrian economics being the prime example. In these cases, as with Austrian economics, it is often that the useful pieces have been incorporated into the synthesis and just become 'economics', while the rest are left as a seperate school of thought.

Do you understand now what I'm getting at here?

A quick question, as your answer I think will let me know if we're on the same page at all - do you think behavioural economics is 'heterodox'? Do you think it's considered heterodox?

KomradeBishop

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Thanks Andrew for that post, good view from the mod side of it, and I think that on balance you are right to steer the discussion in that fashion.

However, the thread linked in KB's post (in Forum Requests) shows that there is certainly enough support for an alternative under the Forum Creation rules, but seeing as the Forum Requests are being ignored at the moment maybe it would be decent of you to allow at least some of the discussion topics that KB is looking for?

Well, don't be fooled by the smears aimed against non-mainstream economics - there is no 'balance' in that, he is literally talking about excluding evidence-based economics from the forum, just because it is Heterodox.

He is trying to assert, using smears and false comparisons, that Mainstream = evidence based, and Heterodox = non-evidence based (through the comparisons to alternative medicine etc.).


That's not the case at all - I've already provided proof of a Heterodox view based on evidence and even supported by the Bank of England.
That also proves that the Mainstream view of banks, had been empirically wrong for almost a century.

Given this, it should be clear that many parts of Mainstream Economics are on shaky ground, when it comes to being based on evidence - and excluding Heterodox views guarantees there will be no criticism of this on the forum.


What is the indicator of pseudoscience: 1: Theory which ignores evidence? or 2: Being the minority view? andrew is trying to pull-off '2', with all of the smears.

andrew

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Thanks Andrew for that post, good view from the mod side of it, and I think that on balance you are right to steer the discussion in that fashion.

However, the thread linked in KB's post (in Forum Requests) shows that there is certainly enough support for an alternative under the Forum Creation rules, but seeing as the Forum Requests are being ignored at the moment maybe it would be decent of you to allow at least some of the discussion topics that KB is looking for?

I do allow many of the discussion topics that KB is looking for. This is the first time I've stepped in, and only becuase it was particualrly egregious example of the kind of methodological issues which I'm talking abuot. This is made a bit clearer in my above post.

Eugene Norman

The entire corpus of economics is a pseudo science. It's not enough to have complex theories in science, those theories need empirical verification and predictive power. Economics has bad axioms, no empirical proof of theory and no predictive power.

KomradeBishop

andrew wrote: »

We're talking past each other here.

Go back over my original post. What I'm talking here is about having a common understanding over economic the general methodology and priors which we use to discuss Economics. This is a slightly nuanced distinction, all the more difficult to make given you don't have any Economics training and insist on making use of the 'schools of thought' framework which isn't a very good framework for analysing the field of Economics as it exists today, but which people seem reluctant to let go of.

Some of the 'heterodox' schools you mention, such as Austrian Economics, entirely reject the premise of economic analysis, rejecting empiricism and the like, rejecting the fundamentals of Economics as thought in any Introduction to Economics textbook. This is a fundamental methodological disagreement. A disagreement of this kind drove the post which kicked all this off - you basically rejected the idea of supply and demand analysis. This is the kind of fundamental disagreement which makes having a discussion about economics difficult, because it can turn any discussion into a discussion of methodological priors and beliefs, which ignoring the question at hand.

Some of the 'heterodox' schools you mention, perhaps post keynesianism (I don't know much about it to be honest) are very much under the aegis of 'Economics' given their adherence to the basic tenants and methodologies which mainstream economics uses. They are only 'heterodox' to the extent that their theories and conclusions aren't really well supported and (at least yet) tend not to match with the mainstream. In the grand scheme of things I'm OK with this, as evidenced by the fact that your MMT threads have stayed put. As you rightly point out, insights from these schools sometimes form part of the 'synthesis' which comprises Economics today (though you're confusing 'endogenous money' with 'banks create money'; they're not the same thing.)

Finally, some of some 'hetrodox' schools combine both an entirely different methodology, with results and conclusions which are unsupported, while having nuggets of truth that have been incorprated into the mainstram, Austrian economics being the prime example. In these cases, as with Austrian economics, it is often that the useful pieces have been incorporated into the synthesis and just become 'economics', while the rest are left as a seperate school of thought.

Do you understand now what I'm getting at here?

A quick question, as your answer I think will let me know if we're on the same page at all - do you think behavioural economics is 'heterodox'? Do you think it's considered heterodox?

I have not rejected empiricism anywhere, that is a straw-man, I support that as a methodology. My arguments were based on evidence, your questioning their methodology is a red herring - and this thread is not about mod action on that thread, it is about the intent to restrict Economics forum discussion.

You are not rejecting criticisms of economic theory based on lack of evidence, you are explicitly rejecting arguments/views based on being non-mainstream.

Mainstream Economics does not mean evidence based economics. Just because a field claims to support evidence-based methodology, does not mean it actually puts that into practice - that's why Mainstream economics was wrong about banks for almost a century (and yes, endogenous money does mean bank money creation - it states it right in the wiki link "for the banking system as a whole, drawing down a bank loan by a non-bank borrower creates new deposits").

Mainstream Economics is not a methodology, it is a specific ideology/framework - based on the neoclassical synthesis - with entire frameworks of theories and models; this goes far beyond methodology.

In the case of Behavioural Economics, that is something that has been emerging into the mainstream - and the restriction that would be placed on the forum, would restrict discussion of other emerging views that are not yet mainstream (yet which are well supported) - such views can take almost a century to become mainstream (like endogenous money), so censoring them is very significant.


I'm not going to accept any restriction of Economics discussion to 'Mainstream Economics' as a result - that is definitely not aimed at excluding theories of poor evidence-base/methodology, it is about enforcing the primacy of a very specific economic theory/framework, and censoring others.

I don't care what you try to portray as representing Mainstream Economics, the actual definition/representation it stands for (the ones I linked), are very different (you can't pick and choose your definitions), and if that restriction is ever allowed into the forum charter, it is guaranteed to be enforced inconsistently - to be used as 'wildcard' rule that mods can warp to mean anything they want - and I am pretty certain it will be used to censor opposing economic views.

I've had experience of mods using inconsistent rules like that before - which tbh, is an utter nightmare to deal with, it allows mods to do and enforce whatever they like - I know just how that works, and how it's used to create a justification for excluding discussion, while avoiding it being labelled as censoring.

KomradeBishop

andrew wrote: »

I do allow many of the discussion topics that KB is looking for. This is the first time I've stepped in, and only becuase it was particualrly egregious example of the kind of methodological issues which I'm talking abuot. This is made a bit clearer in my above post.

This thread is not about the mod action, and isn't aimed at contesting the mod action - I definitely want to keep the thread focus away from that, as it would be an easy way to straw-man me - it is explicitly about the intention of restricting Economics forum discussion to Mainstream Economics.

andrew

I have nothing more to add to this thread. I've explained my reasoning as well as I can.

hatrickpatrick

andrew wrote: »

You misunderstand the extent to which schools of thought are still relevant in Economics (they are, but not nearly as much as you think), and within that, don’t have any understanding of what is relevant to the discipline today.

Economics as I understand it (judge for yourself whether my having Economics degrees is relevant here, and no this is not an example of an appeal to authority) has settled more upon a methodology more than any one school, a methodology which models economic phenomena mathematically, and then uses statistics to analyse those models. It is through this methodology that ‘competing’ (and I use that term lightly) schools of economics are analysed today, and your (incorrect) assertion that the only school of economics taught today is Neoclassical economics (or that I’d only want posts about Neoclassical economics) arises from the fact that the neoclassical school heavily emphasised the modelling approach in addition to having neoclassical theories of how people behave.

I think it’s fair enough to broadly limit discussion to mainstream economics which conforms to that methodology as taught in pretty much any Undergraduate or Postgraduate Economics course. Any forum needs a basis for discussion (priors), and I think it’s pretty reasonable that the Economics forum takes as its basis the metholody and priors used in academia in general. Without that common basis, it is pretty difficult to have a discussion about anything at all, as every Economics question which people post becomes a thread about the priors which underpin that question, and not about that question itself, as the post which I reprimanded you for shows.

Obviously, there is a grey area in terms of where the line is drawn and what and whether a discussion is or is not ‘valid’. That’s why I’ve let many of your posts up until that one go. But answering a question about supply curves with a response which essentially says that the OP’s confusion is due to the fact that supply and demand analysis isn’t valid is well beyond that line, in addition to being completely wrong. Ultimately, I figure it’s the mod’s job to make that judgement call, so I did.





I agree that the forum is too slow (though I’d note it has never had more than about 3 active posters, especially following the introduction of the Irish Economy forum). I don’t think that increasing traffic by lowering posting standards is a good solution to that problem, on the basis that bad economics which furthers misconceptions and is wrong, is actively bad and worse than a smaller amount of decent quality economics. I’m open to suggestions as to how to improve traffic while maintaining quality.

I would fundamentally disagree with this I have to say. Economics is simply the discussion of the economy and how it operates. It should not be limited to academic discussion only.

Overheal

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

However, the thread linked in KB's post (in Forum Requests) shows that there is certainly enough support for an alternative under the Forum Creation rules, but seeing as the Forum Requests are being ignored at the moment maybe it would be decent of you to allow at least some of the discussion topics that KB is looking for?

As stated in that thread by PopePalpatine, why not make the same argument of the Political Theory board, which could include economic topics?

Even though the request has ~20 certifiable +1's (after closed accounts, not counting 1 or 2 conditionals, detracting posts, etc) if forum requests was operating as normal, it doesn't meet the qualifying conditions for consideration (which itself is not guarantee of a forum's creation)(yes, I got a notepad out and counted votes). In particular, many of the votes for the forum occurred outside of the 6 week tally period. So as the rules stand: there is actually not enough support for an alternative under the forum creation rules - that is false.

HatrickPatrick wrote:

I would fundamentally disagree with this I have to say. Economics is simply the discussion of the economy and how it operates. It should not be limited to academic discussion only.

You have to give credence to the fact that Economics is in the Science category. If you wanted to have topical discussions say about the DOW Jones Industrial index/NASDAQ, or investing in APPL vs GOOG or NVDA, or stockpiling Gold, that would probably fit somewhere in the Business and Finance category. Similarly the Geography forum is not the place to discuss Middle Eastern politics, or traveling to the US even though ostensibly both topics would fall under the very broad field of 'geography.'

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, don't be fooled by the smears aimed against non-mainstream economics - there is no 'balance' in that, he is literally talking about excluding evidence-based economics from the forum, just because it is Heterodox.

He is trying to assert, using smears and false comparisons, that Mainstream = evidence based, and Heterodox = non-evidence based (through the comparisons to alternative medicine etc.).

That's not the case at all - I've already provided proof of a Heterodox view based on evidence and even supported by the Bank of England.

That also proves that the Mainstream view of banks, had been empirically wrong for almost a century.

Given this, it should be clear that many parts of Mainstream Economics are on shaky ground, when it comes to being based on evidence - and excluding Heterodox views guarantees there will be no criticism of this on the forum.

What is the indicator of pseudoscience: 1: Theory which ignores evidence? or 2: Being the minority view? andrew is trying to pull-off '2', with all of the smears.

Comrade, if you want to gain support or present yourself as the rational argument in a debate, it really helps not to smear and negatively attack your opponent - least of all while you accuse them of smearing and attacking you. In the third person. On a thread they are participating in. aka. If you're brave enough to say it, say it to their face.

hatrickpatrick

Overheal wrote: »

You have to give credence to the fact that Economics is in the Science category. If you wanted to have topical discussions say about the DOW Jones Industrial index/NASDAQ, or investing in APPL vs GOOG or NVDA, or stockpiling Gold, that would probably fit somewhere in the Business and Finance category. Similarly the Geography forum is not the place to discuss Middle Eastern politics, or traveling to the US even though ostensibly both topics would fall under the very broad field of 'geography.'

That's not what I meant, I was simply saying that economic discussion shouldn't be limited to what is accepted by so-called experts. Economists have been wrong in their theories and predictions time and time again, thus their "approval" or lack thereof of certain ideas should not be allowed to set the parameters of acceptable economic discussion.

Economics isn't a science anyway and it never was, it's an attempt to understand mass psychology if anything. There is no such thing as an absolute in economics, if there was, unexpected things wouldn't persistently happen when theory is applied to reality.

Overheal

By their explicit definitions, both Economics and Psychology are sciences.

Overheal

That's not what I meant, I was simply saying that economic discussion shouldn't be limited to what is accepted by so-called experts. Economists have been wrong in their theories and predictions time and time again, thus their "approval" or lack thereof of certain ideas should not be allowed to set the parameters of acceptable economic discussion.

I'll try to relate this to Conspiracy Theories. Under the same principles of discussion, we re-opened the can of worms on the Lunar Landing because several people were happy to discuss it, including myself. That did not prohibit theorists/proponents of the CT from dismissing provided evidences and counter-arguments; they wanted to keep recycling the same ground that had already been covered several times in that thread already under the general premise/ethos (like KomradeBishop is using) that #AllOpinionsMatter. That got messy, though the thread is still open and IMO a good read.

Similarly, we've had several discussions in the forum in general that were hijacked and/or redirected off of their original topic to turn the thread(s) into a 9/11 discussion, when we actually had a forum for that (unlike this case, but that doesn't defeat the argument). Even in those discussions, the conversations all got sucked into the same talking points ad nauseum (eg. Obama is the incarnation of Satan who is leading a cabal of 13 satanic families in ruling the Earth; Seth MacFarlane is an illuminati or something)(I am not making that up).

I can see why people might want to discuss this issue though, and if needs to be hashed out, hash it out - to a point. If every thread turns into a "well this the Heterodoxical way of doing it..." that's going to cause friction. @Andrew @KomradeBishop, has there been a "megathread" and/or specific discussion about Heterodoxical economics, and if so how did that work out? Instead of derailing other threads with Heterodoxical debate points, you could reference other threads in such a heterodoxical megathread, and discuss your opinions from there. Just like has been done at several points in this feedback thread, we've referenced other threads and forums and yet brought that discussion here, not there(s); thus instead of trying to pitch a Heterodoxical war-tent in every thread in sight, you can reference those threads while discussing your viewpoint, in a thread about Heterodoxical economics.

KomradeBishop

Overheal wrote: »

As stated in that thread by PopePalpatine, why not make the same argument of the Political Theory board, which could include economic topics?

Even though the request has ~20 certifiable +1's (after closed accounts, not counting 1 or 2 conditionals, detracting posts, etc) if forum requests was operating as normal, it doesn't meet the qualifying conditions for consideration (which itself is not guarantee of a forum's creation)(yes, I got a notepad out and counted votes). In particular, many of the votes for the forum occurred outside of the 6 week tally period. So as the rules stand: there is actually not enough support for an alternative under the forum creation rules - that is false.

At the time, it did squeeze within the window for acceptance, and the 6 week period isn't totally strict - though I think it still made it within that window.

I can't talk about PT due to the Feedback forum rules, so can only confirm (without going into it) that it can't cover that forum request.

Overheal wrote: »

You have to give credence to the fact that Economics is in the Science category. If you wanted to have topical discussions say about the DOW Jones Industrial index/NASDAQ, or investing in APPL vs GOOG or NVDA, or stockpiling Gold, that would probably fit somewhere in the Business and Finance category. Similarly the Geography forum is not the place to discuss Middle Eastern politics, or traveling to the US even though ostensibly both topics would fall under the very broad field of 'geography.'

It's a social science though - definitely not a proper science. The Economics forum charter explicitly allows discussion of current economic affairs.

Overheal wrote: »

Comrade, if you want to gain support or present yourself as the rational argument in a debate, it really helps not to smear and negatively attack your opponent - least of all while you accuse them of smearing and attacking you. In the third person. On a thread they are participating in. aka. If you're brave enough to say it, say it to their face.

Here is andrew comparing Heterodox - i.e. the minority views within economics - to Creationism:

andrew wrote: »

OP claims that heterodox views are nowhere near to being like alternative medicine and there’s actually lots of disagreement within Economics; this is the Economics equivalent of the whole ‘teach the controversy’ stuff that creationists come out with.

Here he is dismissing Heterodox views in general, as being non-evidence-based - because they are Heterodox i.e. the minority view:

andrew wrote:

If heterodox economics was well backed and had solid empirical evidence... it wouldn't be heterodox.

That is panning Heterodox views as being pseudoscience/non-empirical, based on them being minority views. I did not smear anybody - but I will definitely vocally point out when they try to smear my own arguments, so they aren't able to continue doing so without others noticing.

It is definitely a smear as well - if someone compares something to creationism, they need to back that up with an actual argument. It's really clear how he's trying to make the link between Heterodox/pseudoscience/non-emprical in his posts, using just assertions i.e. smears.

Here also, is me directly saying as such to andrew as well, counter to your claim that I didn't...

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is not at all comparable to saying 'the entire health care profession is wrong', or to promoting creationism/conspiracy-theories - you are again trying to portray all of Heterodox economics as being comparable to pseudo-scientific branches of others fields, yet this is an assertion without any argument backing it, without any evidence backing it, and which is largely just a smear.

The gall of that smear tbh (and coming from a mod)...even people arguing against creationists, present arguments and evidence refuting their views, you are just presenting a smear, with nothing supporting it.

If you're going to criticize me, please read the thread and get your facts straight first.

Overheal

If you're going to criticize me, please read the thread and get your facts straight first.

I don't wish to be dragged into your feud, I only stand by the words that actually fly off my keyboard: you're being uncivil/rude in relation to your behavior on this thread, I have not reviewed yours or Andrew's exhaustive post history to keep scores - nor am I picking sides. Nor is it in the scope of this discussion. As for the rest, see my more recent post and query about a possible compromise. Thanks.

KomradeBishop

Overheal wrote: »

By their explicit definitions, both Economics and Psychology are sciences.

The word Science colloquially refers to the Hard Sciences - Physics, Chemistry etc. - Economics is a social science i.e. 'soft science', and isn't really considered a proper science colloquially.

Economics has an abysmally poor track record of respecting empirical findings, e.g. the example I repeatedly gave of mainstream economics getting banking wrong for almost a century, despite all of the available evidence.

So it in no way deserves any categorization even close to sciences that actually respect empirical findings.

KomradeBishop

Overheal wrote: »

I don't wish to be dragged into your feud, I only stand by the words that actually fly off my keyboard: you're being uncivil/rude in relation to your behavior on this thread, I have not reviewed yours or Andrew's exhaustive post history to keep scores. Nor is it in the scope of this discussion. As for the rest, see my more recent post and query about a possible compromise. Thanks.

When someone tries to smear another persons views - by comparison to pseudoscience and whatnot, without any actual argument describing how that is an appropriate comparison, just by assertion - in order to try and gain the upper hand in a debate, that is uncivil.

That deserves to be pointed out very harshly (especially given that it will affect the future of a forum, and is being used to back what amounts to censorship) - and I disagree that I was uncivil in doing so.

Overheal

Did you want to discuss the topic/issue (the creation/allotment of an avenue for your viewpoint discussion), or continue to have a whinge sesh about how your ego has been bruised? Because I'm trying to get your opinion/feedback on my proposal and you keep coming back at me with remarks that have nothing to do with that. The topic will not be made by continuing to attack the moderator of the forum you are trying to participate in, and as discussed, the new forum has virtually no chance of creation at this juncture (Terminal Illness is at the front of the line, IMO).