That's all well and good but a robust scientific model (like evolution) makes predictions that can be tested.
Some economist observed that evolutionary biology and economics are the same theory with different names attached to the terms of the theory. Game theory is a formalized branch of mathematics. Economists freely use evolutionary models (see Hirshliefer, "Anarchy and its Breakdown",
JPE, 1995 and Posner, "The Law and Economics movement",
AER, 1987) and biologists freely use economic models. See Dawkins,
The Selfish Gene, Wilson, "The Ergonomics of Social Insects" (
AER), Darwin, "
On The Origin of Species". Game theory applies explicitly to economic behavior. See von Neuman and Morgenstern,
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. So also does standard economic analysis make predictions which can be tested. Standard economics faces several problems, among which are (a) people want more precision that the wild variables of the real world allow (b) politicians don't care whether the predicted malign effects of poor policy occur or not.
... We know what works, Well regulated capitalist economies with some form of Keynesian policies (central bank, monetary and fiscal policies).
We know what doesn't work, So called communism and libertarian/laissez-faire capitalism/anarcho-capitalism. None have have ever shown to be of any value to the society at large. All serve special interests. Thankfully, modern liberal democracies appear immune to such pie in the sky nonsense.
Sadly, ignorant people fall for the fairy tale of disinterested, altruistic, well-informed and competent government agents.
To date, nations highest in GDP and per capita GDP and who are also high in human developmentand have mixed economies. Given the science one can only resound with a defining DUH!
We can provisionally agree on the use of GDP, with this reservation: GDP (and HDI) includes government expenses, so a predatory State that spent vast amounts on surveillance of its own people, indoctrinating children into the State religion (so long as it's called "education"), and subsidizing padded public works projects for politically-connected insiders could look as good, on paper, as Switzerland. Other measures of social wellbeing present other problems. None is perfect.
- We have the data.
- We have the robust scientific model verified by anthropological field research and business mathematics (namely game theory).
- We win.
Our opponents? They have "explanations"and famously failed pseudo science, what Rudyard Kipling termed as "Just So Stories".
Note the scare quotes. Randfan's explanations are explanations. Mine are "explanations". Randfan presumes the conclusion.
Randfan's data does not imply what he claims. At least, the data admit other interpretations. We agree that game theory applies to economic analysis. No modern economist in the Chicago or Austrian tradition would dispute that. I don't expect that Randfan can locate a significant difference between classical liberal (i.e., libertarian or "laissez faire") economics and Keynesian economics, aside from the Keynesian reliance on demand management. That is, with reasonable differences in the weight policy makers assign to various considerations, a Keynesian might easily be more inclined than a non-Keynesian to favor, say, deregulation of labor markets. As far as I know, there is no specifically Keynesian position on the assignment of responsibility for the provision of education services.
Yet, in spite of the evidence the press forward to defend their cherished but left to the dung heap of evidence stories.
He just cannot resist the descent into ad hominem.
