By Professor
Doom
I know I pick on Women’s Studies often; I
have many issues with this particular field of “study,” namely that it isn’t
one. There’s another field that sure looks like it should be a legitimate
academic topic, which nevertheless bears even more claim to absolute scorn:
economics. It isn’t simply because economics departments succumb to ideology
more than academics, but because academia’s current beliefs in the field are so
blatantly wrong.
Our
nation’s top economist is Krugman (arguably, Karl Marx), and he favors the Keynesian
approach to economics: if you print a great deal of money, you’ll create wealth in a country,
due to animal spirits.
I’m simplifying greatly, of course, but the bottom line is our country has been
making economic decisions based on pagan aspects of Keynesian theory for
decades now, ever since WW2.
Now, Keynesianism was attributed to much
of the country’s success after WW2, but I feel this is being generous. The
United States was about the only industrialized country that didn’t get bombed
down to ruins during that war, and this alone gave the country a huge economic
advantage in the decade immediately afterward.
Today the country’s wealth has dribbled
away, and we’re at a level of debt that mathematically can never be legitimately
paid off…and getting deeper in debt all the time. Again, according to
Keynesians like Krugman, debt creates wealth. We’ve been practicing this policy
for years, and I’m really not convinced we as a people are that much wealthier
from all the debt (even if the people at the top are raking it in).
This alone isn’t enough to cast
aspersions on our current economic model for prosperity. There’s more. In valid academic study, when evidence contradicts your theory, you change your theory.
Random things happen; even a skilled
basketball player will miss a shot, a great runner will trip near the finish
line, a stray iceberg can sink even the most well-designed ship. However, if a
great basketball player misses every single shot, the runner always falls, or ships
of the same design keep crashing into icebergs…you have to consider if your
underlying assumptions are wrong and it’s not just bad luck.
That’s the real issue with Keynesianism.
The big crash of 1987 was considered a “6 sigma” event, an event so rare that,
on a daily basis, you’d expect to see it every few billion years or so. The big
Nasdaq crash in 2000 was another 6 sigma event. The big crash in 2008 was
another 6 sigma event…all but impossible to believe happened. I’m not the only one to notice that statistically what we’re seeing
is statistically impossible, but the end conclusion is clear:
There’s no way Keynesian theory can be
valid, and we can also have multi-billion to one events, as predicted by that
theory, occur every 10 years or so.
Keynes: “In the long run, we’re all
dead.”
--Keynes knew his kooky theories
would lead to total disaster, and this was his response to the people who also
understand his theories would end to complete failure eventually. But he
figured he’d be dead when it happened, and he had no children to care about, so
it wasn’t his concern. Shouldn’t we factor Keynes’ own understanding of his
economics into our assessment of these theories?
In the face of obvious, repeated,
demonstrations that our accepted economic theories are wrong, what we should do
is change the accepted theories. While this should have happened years ago, it
hasn’t. Keynesianism is a government-friendly theory, and, hey, most of the
money flowing onto our campuses and into our economics departments comes from
government. So, no way for there to be a serious change…unless someone besides
the government is willing to pay for it.
Lookie here:
New Koch-backed
institute at the University of Utah is raising questions about academic freedom
and whether the center is designed to compete with Utah’s existing economics
department.
Now, I’m pretty sure Koch has “a drop” of
blood on his hands, but when it comes to advancement of human knowledge,
especially turning away from the dealth-cult mysticism of Keynesianism, I’m
willing to overlook where the money is coming from…the money coming from
government is already doing great harm, and is soaked in blood, after all.
Koch’s couldn’t possibly be more tainted.
So, Koch is plunking down tens of
millions of dollars to build a new economics department on campus, one that
will investigate the non-government friendly theories of Libertarian economics.
It’s extremely interesting to me, that every
time a fiefdom (and associated administrative palace) springs up on campus,
there’s not a peep of complaint. I’ve been in higher education for years, and
I’ve never seen admin or faculty complain when more money pours on campus.
But, now, the complaints are widespread
over getting enough money for 7 (yes, just 7) faculty and $1.6 million for
student scholarships:
Some 18 professors from the economics department, along with
176 others on campus (mostly faculty members), signed a statement of concern
about the institute submitted to the Academic Senate’s Executive Committee this
summer. And on Monday the Senate approved a resolution charging a recently
established faculty committee with the additional task of reviewing policies
and procedures for approving institutes and centers.
All those dogs not barking are really
bothering me. A university can commit $1,000,000 a
year to fight racism in response to a “hate crime” that never happened…and silence. Our universities can have dozens of
$250,000 a year vice presidents of Diversity working hard to start riots…and silence. Campuses can spend
millions teaching students about deviant sexual practices…and silence. I’ve
documented many cases of many millions of dollars being spent on ridiculously
detrimental things and my blog is about the only place to complain about the
clear misuse of funds…everyplace else is silent.
But set up a department to research a way
to prosperity that doesn’t involve enriching the political caste, paid for with
money not even coming from the government (though it’s fair to ask where Koch got his
money), and 176 admin
and faculty complain.
On general principle, I have to be for this. I can’t even wrap my mind around the complaints:
The “funding
agreement between the Charles Koch Foundation and the University of Utah raises
serious concerns about the principles and practice of intellectual independence
and academic freedom,"
Academic freedom? Seriously? Now
it’s a problem? Our academics today tend to be anonymous when they say things,
because saying the wrong thing can get you fired, quickly. Questioning the
narrative in any form is career suicide. But hiring 7 faculty is going to be a
threat to academic freedom? I almost wonder if this complaint is a joke.
The letter, which also recommends “vigilant…oversight
by senior university leadership…for everyone affiliated with this institute,”
Again, the thought that they are joking
comes to mind. Nothing says freedom like “vigilant oversight by admin,” am I
right?
They want to watch everyone.
Vigilantly.
In the name of freedom.
I
couldn’t make up something this offensive to freedom if I tried.
What are they afraid of that they feel
the need to watch a handful of economists so closely? Are they afraid the
economists will come up with a theory that supports our government going $20
trillion in debt, debt that will bankrupt the country? Are they afraid the
economists will support a Ponzi scheme entitlement welfare plan that is
guaranteed to go bankrupt? Are they afraid the economists will create a fiat
currency system that will bankrupt most of the citizens? Are they afraid they
will say the way to solve our economic problems is to bankrupt the country by preparing for a theoretical invasion of aliens from outer
space like top
economist Krugman believes?
Seriously, how could Koch’s economists have worse ideas than the government
economists we use now?
I’m very suspicious of billionaires
slathering their money over things, but the more the university complains, the
more I’m fine with Koch funding this. I emphasize: the “leaders” running this place think you’ll get more freedom from
vigilant oversight by commissars.
So what if Koch will control one small department
with his money? With the current standard of competence at this university, and
the standard for competence among economics, I’m interested to see how Koch
could possibly be any worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment