I have been seeing that those who have something to say about daylilies tend to get almost to the extent of, well using nasty name calling, over what I perceive to be minor issues like who is right about how color in the flower is generated. I know that this may not be as important as Libya, or earthquakes, but to the nome who is throwing the mud it most likely is. They accuse others, using hidden identities, of such evils of "buying" degrees and of false data and the like. Really nasty stuff. Perhaps it is what one would expect from a set of folks who spend their days on the daylily patch. I tend to let loose with my squirrel tales but alas I have done real work as well in life. But all of that banter is rather petty at time compared to these economists.
They are out calling each other arsonists, yes arsonists! Now that may be a bit too heavy handed. There are times when I have my differences, differences based upon facts which hopefully we can discuss. For example I am against a Pigou tax, basically I have never seen a Government take a tax dollar and spend it twice on something not only useless but counter productive, and the net effect is a penalty on those creating value. Second I think that carbs should be taxed because they have a cost, and that would not be necessary if we had some Coase like litigation but again alas not.
But this vicious name calling, albeit not behind the Internet shield of pseudo names, sometimes goes a bit over the line. So this throwing of verbal cabbages back and forth does little for ever allowing confidence in any economist. Imagine is we had physicians doing this, wait we do sometimes, but not on a day by day basis. I do not see this with engineers, imagine a battle over the truss bridge versus a suspension bridge. Real exciting stuff!
So what is it really about economics? There was a piece a short while back where they claimed it a science. I do not think so. At least not based upon the actors. It seems like a debate club. With a large pile of mud to be slung back and forth.