C2, my plan is to put amateurs in charge of money. The design of my new currency is proceeding apace. The analogy they make of economics with astrophysics is a good one. You will have noticed my references to financial relativity theory, event horizons, Black Scholes gravitational fields, money accelerating to the speed of light.
They have a fundamental fault here: <
1. Ph.D economists are bright (although not the only bright people),
2. They have devoted years to study of economics, and
3. They have expended enormous efforts. >
PhD means "approved by the powers that be". As we have seen with "peer reviewed Global Warming", the powers that be like to have a monopoly on thinking and cash flow leading to thinking. That leads to a paucity of thinking, not necessarily innovative thinking. There was even a quote or two in that article to the idea that having new ideas is a good idea.
<
The man who cannot occasionally imagine events and conditions of existence that are contrary to the causal principle as he knows it will never enrich his science by the addition of a new idea.
– Max Planck
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein >
The primary requirement for getting PhDs and other degrees and approved qualifications is to submit to the authorities who determine how things are. Of course their argument is also right that people without the brains, study, knowledge and effort are not likely to come up with the goods and certainly won't be able to define things well enough to make the idea work [for example I could come up with the idea of CDMA, but not having the know-how and detailed expertise could be nothing but a bystander to the action which created the reality].
The very process of developing high level expertise narrows people into channels which limit their understanding of other perhaps important aspects.
Financial Relativity Theory rulz ok...
Mqurice |
