Economists: What Value Are They?

Over the years we have been quite critical of economists. They hold themselves out as practitioners of some scientific discipline yet their recommendations are often in conflict with one another and their ability to forecast is dismal. As some economist has recently noted in the defense of his practice of the art:  

Since the global financial crisis and recession of 2007-2009, criticism of the economics profession has intensified. The failure of all but a few professional economists to forecast the episode – the aftereffects of which still linger – has led many to question whether the economics profession contributes anything significant to society. If they were unable to foresee something so important to people’s wellbeing, what good are they? Indeed, economists failed to forecast most of the major crises in the last century, including the severe 1920-21 slump, the 1980-82 back-to-back recessions, and the worst of them all, the Great Depression after the 1929 stock-market crash. In searching news archives for the year before the start of these recessions, I found virtually no warning from economists of a severe crisis ahead. Instead, newspapers emphasized the views of business executives or politicians, who tended to be very optimistic.

It was not a failure of a few but a failure of a community of them. Does the art of economics lend anything useful to society? The defense of that question is in the following quote:
 

But this criticism is unfair. We do not blame physicians for failing to predict all of our illnesses. Our maladies are largely random, and even if our doctors cannot tell us which ones we will have in the next year, or eliminate all of our suffering when we have them, we are happy for the help that they can provide. Likewise, most economists devote their efforts to issues far removed from establishing a consensus outlook for the stock market or the unemployment rate. And we should be grateful that they do.

This statement is unfair to physicians. Physicians do recognize the problems their patients will face and often cannot do anything. Just look at obesity. It leads to a plethora of disorders but try and get someone to diet. Just like Congress.

In reality Economics should be compared to Civil Engineering. Now observe:

1. Civil Engineers have building codes based upon facts.

2. Civil Engineers have a science they all agree to. Try and get two Economists to agree on anything. They are the nastiest bunch I have ever seen. And each one has at least two opinions on everything and there is no concurrence.

3. Civil Engineers get sued of the bridge they designed falls. Ever hear of an Economist getting sued for anything? Physicians get sued, even lawyers get sued. But Economists, no jury could ever understand them anyhow.

4. Civil Engineers design and build bridges. The bridges work, they do what they were supposed to, unless of course politicians get in the middle. Economists cannot predict anything with the same sense of accuracy. Economists have lots of equations and theories. Civil Engineers have a few thousands of years of experience.

Imagine what would have happened to an Economist in Imperial Rome!

So please, until economists can agree on their "laws" and take responsibility for their failures they are at best witch doctors who somehow make a lot of money.