POLLSTERS WITH AN ATTITUDE

                   POLLSTERS WITH AN ATTITUDE

        The whole climate of thought will be different.  In fact
        there will be no thought, as we understand it now.
        Orthodoxy  means not thinking -- not needing to think.
        Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
                                        --  George Orwell, 1948

        ... the world can, in effect, get along without natural
         resources ... at some finite cost, production can be freed
         of dependence on exhaustible resources altogether...
                 -- Economic Nobel Laureate Robert Solow
            1974 lecture to the American Economic Association

Orthodox economists like Robert Solow are trained -- like mindless robots --
to believe that capitalism is powered by money. But scientists pointed
out over a hundred years ago that capitalism is powered by energy:

   "It is, in fact, the fate of all kinds of energy of position to be
    ultimately converted into energy of motion. The former may be
    compared to money in a bank, or capital, the latter to money which
    we are in the act of spending ... If we pursue the analogy a step
    further, we shall see that the great capitalist is respected because
    he has the disposal of a great quantity of energy; and that whether
    he be nobleman or sovereign, or a general in command, he is powerful
    only from having something which enables him to make use of the
    services of others. When a man of wealth pays a labouring man to
    work for him, he is in truth converting so much of his energy of
    position into actual energy...

   "The world of mechanism is not a manufactory, in which energy is
    created, but rather a mart, into which we may bring energy of one
    kind and change or barter it for an equivalent of another kind, that
    suits us better - but if we come with nothing in hand, with nothing
    we will most assuredly return."
                                                 -- Balfour Stewart, 1883

But economists still do not study energy -- they study money and prices.
Money isn't a measure of anything real, like tons or gallons.  Money is
social power because it "empowers" people to buy and do the things they
want -- including buying and doing other people: politics.[5]  Money is, in
a word, "coercion". "Economic efficiency" is correctly seen as a political
concept designed to conserve power for those who have it -- to make
the rich, richer and the poor, poorer.

Like a Tibetan monk spinning a prayer wheel, economists frequently point
to prices and make claims about the real world.  This or that is "better
off" they say, and go on their way.  But the price of a thing does not
reveal its quantity nor its quality.   How much is $10 worth of oil?  (It
depends upon when and where you bought it.)  What's the net energy of
$10 worth of oil? If oil costs $10 a barrel, how much is left in the ground?
Who knows? Prices simply measure states of mind.  This means that
economists issue opinions on opinions.  In short, economists are pollsters
with an "attitude".

The source of the economist's attitude (really a political agenda) is
identified by another Economic Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman:

    "Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange
     can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary,
     no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit." [6]

Economic professors like Friedman resort to meaningless, circular arguments
and mathematical conjuring tricks to promote their political agendas.  For
example, economists assume people make "rational" [7] decisions but
abstain from testing that assumption. Instead of testing, economists invoke
"revealed preferences theory" which states that choices are rational
because they are based on preferences that are known through the choices
that are made [8].  In other words, meaningless, circular arguments.

Shouldn't hucksters like Solow and Friedman have received Academy
Awards for their performances rather than Nobel Prizes?

-------------

[5]  When I use "politics" or "political", I simply mean "one coercing
      another" in the broadest sense.  To "coerce" is to compel one
      to act in a certain way -- either by reward or punishment.  When
      I use the term "economists", I mean "standard" (or neoclassical)
      economists.
[6] pp. 1-2, FREE TO CHOOSE, Milton and Rose Friedman; Harvest, 1980
[7] "The social sciences have a long, rich history of writings on
     rationality. In the tradition of neoclassical economic science, as
     in the writings of Pareto (1935), an action is rational when it
     corresponds with the ends or goals sought. Rationality means the
     adaptation of means to ends. The more congruent the means to the
     ends, the more efficient the decision and, therefore, the more
     rational the organization (Weber 1947). Economists abstain from
     applying the test of rationality to ends." [p.16, DECISION MAKING:
     ALTERNATIVES TO RATIONAL CHOICE MODELS, Mary Zey; Sage, 1992]
[8] p. 31, RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY: A CRITIQUE,
       Zey; Sage, 1998