The best thing I can do is make sure I can understand the defence – so when things go the other why I can clearly whine about it later. It is all about maximising my utility after all.

@Paul Walker

It isn’t clear as the “orthodoxy” is never really defined. It is a lovely straw man to beat up – I see it happening all the time.

I reckon if someone wants to make a policy recommendation they should have to write it in the form:

Premise,
Premise
etc
Premise
=
Conclusion

And they should be willing to argue the logical nature of each premise, and the equals. I suspect if people did this – even implicitly – they would recognise that some of the stuff that comes out is “poppycock”.

One thing I have always wondered when I see headlines like this is, What is “economic orthodoxy”? Is he really saying we should abandon supply and demand? That we should abandon the Coaseian view of firms? That we should abandon the view that printing money causes inflation? These things seem to be part of the economic orthodoxy to me.

Or does he mean we must abandon things he don’t like and he will define economic orthodoxy to be those things?

Yes, when the show trials begin I’m sure you’ll be allowed to mount a “defence”.

The whole compulsion argument is a blunt stick for perceived issues. I just can’t believe that all the people pushing this type of scheme refuse to ask “what” the problem is and “why” it is occurring before coming up with a solution.

We teach kids in school to ask things such as what and why – why is it that so many intelligent people forget it as adults?

Tis true, markets fail, governments fail – all economists can do is try to point to the relevant trade-offs.

@Miguel Sanchez

The way I see it this provides a brief outline of a defence – if specific policy recommendations come up I can then do posts on them starting from this point. Even if no-one listens, hopefully the effort isn’t wasted because it “clarifies my own thoughts”.

“Seriously, even I’m (just) old enough to remember the last days of Fortress New Zealand and why it had to come down in a screaming heap. Hickey should surely know better.”

I agree – however, this is the sort of thing fear does to opinions.

My main issue with this sort of thing is not the fact that people want to make things “better” – I agree with that. My main issue is that people seem to want a quick, silver bullet, solution – rather than trying to understand the issues and determine whether a better, consistent, conterfactual exists.

Seriously, even I’m (just) old enough to remember the last days of Fortress New Zealand and why it had to come down in a screaming heap. Hickey should surely know better.

Thanks for posting this.