Comments on: Should we shut up and let Geithner do his thing?

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:28:39 +0000

I think the more basic problem is that economics (particularly macroeconomics) is a descriptive science like paleontology rather than a predictive one like physics. We do have applied economists: bankers, for example. Unfortunately, bankers, including Tim Geithner, got the financial system into the fix it’s in and have demonstrated rather clearly that they don’t have the foggiest notion of how to get it out.

Applied economics continues to be largely a seat of the pants phenomenon. It isn’t at the state that applied physics was in, say, 1960. It isn’t in the state that applied physics was in 1660.

However, have no fear. I think there’s an old medical apothegm that applies: God (or time) heals the patient, the physician gets the fee. The troubles we’re in will pass in time and whoever’s been at the helm will get credit for steering us through treacherous waters.

By: CosmicConservative

CosmicConservative — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:58:57 +0000

This is a perfect example of why people have principles. I am against certain things in principle and when I see them in this bill, I can immediately recommend removing them because they violate my principles. I know it's a quaint and virtually unknown trait these days. CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Drunk with power

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:40:19 +0000

The problem in this situation is that Hugh Laurie could probably convince me to undergo a medical procedure that I don’t understand. That an actor playing a doctor has more credibility with me than the folks running the country is just wrong.

By: Kevin D.

Kevin D. — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:26:18 +0000

Eric is right. What Obama and Giethner are doing would be the medical equivalent of a doctor saying to his patient, “You couldn’t understand even if I tried to explain it to you. Just sign on the line. ”

Short of the Obama Administration rolling out Hugh Laurie, I’m gonna want a little more than they’re willing to give. Which is ironic as they want me to do most of the giving.

By: Eric Rall (Maniakes)

Eric Rall (Maniakes) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:06:44 +0000

That’s a really good analogy. The surgeon is the expert, but he still needs to explain the procedure to his patient and get the patient’s approval because the patient is paying for it and because the patient is the one who will suffer the consequences if something goes wrong.

The main difference is that medicine is a much harder science than economics, and we understand the human body and how it’s affected by medical interventions much better than we understand the economy and how it’s affected by government interventions.

[edit: by "harder" I mean "more rigorous"]

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:46:51 +0000

One doesn’t have to be an expert to make valid recommendations or offer legitimate critique, though.

After all, I’m not qualified to do brain surgery, but I’m informed enough to know that severing the corpus callosum isn’t an appropriate action when trying to deal with a clot in the cortex.