Bill Cooper didn't reveal shit about how economists think they can control the economy and can't. If they could, then socialist planned economies would work. But they don't.
This is not a "yay capitalism" comment, as that system has failures too, but it's Keynes vs Hayek comment, and Hayek was mostly right.
Your big problem here, is applying what you think are universals, which aren't universals, to individualistic situations, namely every country's political economy.
Ponder that point, then answer why doesn't every country run by tyrants (which is all of them) have planned economies?
Does it give you comfort to believe that someone, even nefarious people, "control" the economy?
Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.
Bill Cooper didn't reveal shit about how economists think they can control the economy and can't. If they could, then socialist planned economies would work. But they don't.
This is not a "yay capitalism" comment, as that system has failures too, but it's Keynes vs Hayek comment, and Hayek was mostly right.
You're bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Socialist planned economies are run by the same tyrants who wish to oppress the economy.
Your big problem here, is applying what you think are universals, which aren't universals, to individualistic situations, namely every country's political economy.
Ponder that point, then answer why doesn't every country run by tyrants (which is all of them) have planned economies?
The economy at this point is linked to the World Bank more or less. They puppeteer it worldwide from there.
Does it give you comfort to believe that someone, even nefarious people, "control" the economy?
Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes.