How many times have you heard someone say, "I can't understand this [...] it's too difficult [...] let's just have the experts deal with it"?
And how many times the subject matter was Economics, Fiscal Policy, or Monetary Policy?
We're told we should leave it to the experts, and yet often times the problems we find ourselves in were created by these very "experts", who now pontificate on what we should do. How ironic.
We have an intuitive grasp of many things in life. Economics is certainly not an easy subject, but behind the curtain of the obscure language of derivatives and quantitative easing, there are actually some pretty simple concepts that everyone can understand and should be familiar with.
And this is what Ha-Joon Chang, leading Economist who consulted for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, Oxfam and various United Nations agencies, is arguing in this video.
Chang dispels the notion that Economics should be relegated to experts and explains why every single person can and SHOULD get their head around basic economics.
This is also the main argument of a book by William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University who specializes in economic development and who wrote The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor.
We're told that, unless we are university professors who authored many papers, we couldn't begin the understand monetary policy, the fractional reserve system, let along implement one.
AND YET, HERE WE ARE
We're learning, w're testing, we're trying. With blockchain and cryptocurrencies, we're essentially running a real-life experiment in monetary policy, without governments, red tape, and years of waiting for permission.
We have an idea, we implement it, we test it. And we improve.
I'm very curious to see how the Steemit Economy will evolve.
The truth is that many Economists simply do not understand the mathematics driving decisions. If they did, they wouldn't expect perpetual growth on a finite planet as a possibility.
-- Sir David Attenborough
This is a good reason to stock up on bitcoins and ripple XRP
For what it's worth, as a person who's rubbed shoulders with a number of economists, I'd say that the economists understand the mathematics better than most people. If economists have a fault, it's that they understand the math too well - and are are blinded by it to the point that they cannot see the people whose decisions their math is supposed to predict.
PhD's in economics are really more applied math degrees. You need not have ever taken an economics class to get into a program nor do you have to demonstrate basic theory to teach an undergad econ course. The textbook publisher will give you everything you need.
T o put it another way, there is little regard for understanding the processes that actually drive the phenomenon economists are trying to study. Observation, that is practical experience or spending time intimately outside the office with the subject matter, isn't valued. Being able to publish is what is most valued among academia.
To note, there is no Steem economics any more than a black economics or a white economics or what have you. The basics of supply and demand never change. The problems created by a centrally planned economy and monetary policy are the same. Rent seeking is rife in crypto and so on and so forth. The standard theories that are present in introductory textbooks hasn't changed in decades. What has change is they put a little more math in there and a lot more color pictures.
How long is a piece of string? The thing is... exponential growth does happen, you only have to look at technology and Moore's Law to see that. Network effects do happen... "Viral things" do happen on the internet.
It's just a matter of figuring out where to take them so they don't blow up in our faces!
Experts are not all that useful if their skin is not fully in the game :)
https://steemit.com/liberty/@marco555/the-imminent-tax-on-crypto-thoughts-evidence-and-opinions
As a "young" economist, I can say that Steemit has one of the best Economies at the moment according to my current observation. They took all the "things" that bank's kept hidden or covered in "scientific terms"that are hard to understand by the public and fixed them. The only flaw in a system like this, are we, people. The system is perfect (to my opinion) but people aren't. We are the ones that will influence the future of this system and it's outcome.
The Wizard of Oz behind the curtain is literally the symbol for that (read in the web about what the author was trying to say with the whole story).
We're removing the curtain.
hahahahaha :-D
There is a very good speech from William Easterly.
I work at a university and am surrounded by economists daily. Most of them are brilliant people, but I can also tell you that a lot of them don't fully grasp very "basic" subjects.. Mostly when it comes down to the math behind them. I would recommend anybody to keep a healthy stance towards any topic in life and do his or her own research on as many things as possible!
Your comment about a lack of basic maths understanding promotes a theory I have - thanks.
I'm curious what you mean by "the math behind them." Could you give an example of what you're talking about?
What if this is not experiment, but attempt to produce initial parameters for solar system economy ?
Let's start building a Dyson sphere
I am so down with this idea. Let's make it happen.
So, please forgive any potential crudeness, but isn't your point that we shouldn't trust experts? If so, why should we then trust this one?
and this one...
Why point out that these two people are experts in an attempt to persuade us from believing in experts? If Dr. Easterly's book successfully proves that all experts are tyrants, why should we trust that he isn't tyrannical himself?
It seem you are on to something here, but your methodology may contradict the very point you are trying to make.
Economists liked to try and claim that Bitcoin was merely a ponzi scheme for a good few years. Well they obviously missed the economics lesson on ponzi's themselves. In that a ponzi scheme has no utility outside of increasing its financial value. while peer to peer cryptocurrencies with their blockchain architecture. Have plenty of utility outside of the concept of currency alone.
Only once or twice, I think.
Though, what they're essentially doing anyway, is just repeat what they heard or read, the "experts" claim.
So in a way, I've seen it a bit too often.
Agreed. Saying that people should leave economics to the 'experts' is like saying that people should leave cooking to chefs.
Obviously input by those well versed in their respective fields are going to carry more weight, but the lay man has just as big an interest in understanding the machinations of society as the academic class.
Yes I think, as you say, it is really important to stay informed about basic economy. I enjoy and looking forward to a part of the monetary policy without governments!
The elite who never work in real life doesn't have experience to taste what and how the real economics works.
I'm really glad to be alive within this transition and wondering of how the Steemit Economy have consideration regarding this.
Problem right now is that the world economies are now bank dependant which is very troublesome. For example, the 2008 housing crash, the US Treausury had to bail out the big banks and even Lehmann Brothers went bankrupted. In my opinion, I believe will definitely happen again but will take time. Right now, Steemit and decentralized economies are actually quite interesting to study! I like to see the markets, economics of it and how it is being affected.
So we are on time?!
Nice article, even shared it on FB.
But I happen to disagree with you on that there isn't a single economic theory that is right. Austrian theory is right. Keynesian theory is wrong. If you take a theory that is right, and than you add something that is not, you do not improve your understanding of the world. Quite the opposite. Are you advocating having an open mind to Marxism or Mercantilism because they would bring you some unique perspective? I hope, not
Good post -- the best thing about digital currencies is that economists now have a test ground. Some would argue that Steemit's infinite but predictable monetary policy is flawed long-term because of a lack of digital scarcity, but we will see.
I know of an example from the realm of Newtonian Physics, where "all experts agree" (except a bunch of crazy lunatics, of course), but are objectively and provably so wrong that it defies belief.
It took me a while to get the concept - during that while, I hoped the "experts" would soon come to a consensus, after all, math and physics don't lie - and when I got it, I understood why I can no longer rely on any expert.
Now, if I can, I look at all sides of an expert dispute, and I found the best method to form an opinion is to follow their debates. Even if you don't understand much about the topic at hand, the respective styles of debate usually make evident who has a good and strong argument -- and who is ideologically blinded to the most simple and fundamental truths. Hint: the one with the Schopenhauerian Dialectics usually is wrong :)
Precisely. The whitepaper itself styles Steem an experiment (although it never clarifies which hypothesis it is supposed to support or falsify). And experiment is the key to science. I am looking forward to how it turns out.
Many Economist are just lobbyist that get paid to push an agenda, part of a self-serving elite.
It is like a consultancy company contracted for firing people or doing a re-org; "it is not me, it is the expert who said it :boom: " (subtitles: i'm paying him to fire/re-org you)
It is really about time that we the people start to take things into our own hands. While we will always need the mind of the experts to shed lights on many subjects, the real power to know should be on everybody's hands. This is real democracy. But we should not also abuse this opportunity. We don't want to end tyranny by making another monster.
I think the solution is to #explainitsimply #eli5. The more people talk about this, the quicker we will level up as a civilization. Clicking on #money already has some great discussions and links!
This is my first ever comment that says: Thank you for sharing this!
I do not want to know anything about the economy. @federicopistono
you can ignore reality...but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Sure you can ignore the "consequences". Hardly anyone really lives in this objective world that we all like to believe exists, anyways. Consequences? Sure, actions based on ignorance will lead to reactions (consequences) for some organism (our bodies), but will our minds be there to experience the fullness of it, or will it register any of it at all?
There are men whom walk around on this earth that we all seem to share, yet live in an entirely different universe. We might prefer to say that their "delusions" are part of the consequences of their past, but they, themselves, may know nothing of consequences; they may not even have the slightest concept of what a consequence is; moreover, they may be blissfully happy! And while there's a good chance that their "ignorance" will be a hindrance to society (systemic hierarchical order), they may also be a source of pure joy to many individuals whom they come across. Ignorance is bliss, after all.
The way I see it - there are two "realities":
1.) the reality of objects moving and interacting; apparently outside of the "self"; with apparent causal relationships following apparent "laws" (objective world).
2.) the reality of senses sensing and awareness "changing shape" according to where the "energy" of attention moves; this, the apparent "inner world" (subjective world).
#2 naturally over-rides #1, since it is "closer" to the "center," or self. If the observer of all processes, subjective and objective, is the center, then senses are one step removed and objects are at least two steps removed. Thus, if one's attention is focused either on center (the observing factor of the mind) or on one's own senses (one step from center), then they can very well live a very peaceful and joyful life, regardless of what's happening "outside" (two steps removed from the "universe" of the self).
It's possible to allow all of our body's actions/ reactions to happen spontaneously (unconsciously) while we remain focused only on the fact that there's a natural observation of all the "inner" and "outer" movements happening, with very little to no care for what happens outside of, or to, the body. This, many will call "depersonalization", and consider it a very bad thing, something to be avoided. But it can be experienced as a great relief, even total blissfulness. So, is it really such a bad thing? To one's (old) personality, probably; staying "there" mentally can mean death to the old persona. To the family, friends, acquaintances, and co-workers whom associate a certain "persona" with the individual in question, almost undoubtedly. However, perceived from the core of the individual in question, it may very well be experienced as a deep and revolutionary transformation that reveals an inner-joy and freedom that was never before touched or tasted in any way - a spiritual awakening of sorts.
Wise words, thank you!
Excellent!