Eugene Coyle wrote: > I once wrote > "Debating with economists > is pointless. Simple and complete rejection is the > way to deal with > them.
Perhaps debating with economists is pointless, Gene, but dialogue with them isn't. I sent copies of my current lump-of-labor paper to about a dozen of the lumpsuckers and got several thoughtful replies. Nobody changed their minds, of course, but one of them -- an official at the OECD -- gave me an important insight into the role of the fallacy in the education of an economist. Paul Swaim pointed out that the the lump-of-labor represents a type of error that is endemic to all economics because, "It is simply impossible to think about everything varying at the same time." Thus as an object lesson about a type of economic error, the lump-of-labor fallacy makes perfect pedagogical sense, up to a point. It takes a striking example dealing with an important public issue and produces a memorable, counter-intuitive result. Problem is, that object lesson is mistaken for an objective fact. Instead of a cautionary tale about the inherent limitations of any and all ceteris paribus analyses, the fable is taken as a celebratory paean to the immunity of 'rigorous'(read: orthodox neo-classical) economic science from the fallibility of crude common sense. A warning against hubris thus becomes an incitement to hubris because of the ease of misreading irony as romance. The Sandwichman __________________________________________________________ Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
