Since the advent of Keynesianism, economics has been plagued by faulty assumptions and methodologies, and—given the influence of economists in government and on the Federal Open Market Committee—it’s not surprising that a big question mark hangs over our economic future.
Complicating this situation is how the people who write laws understand what they are doing. Passing a minimum wage increase, for instance, sounds like politicians are sympathizing with working people. Yet such a measure would hurt some workers for the benefit of others, and may price labor out altogether for some firms.
The Fed could print more money to allow employers to raise the wages of their employees, but the downsides should be obvious. Since politics trumps economic reasoning, we get policies that put a shine on politicians. Trainers of economists are obliged to comply with political reality. It’s all short-run considerations.
If you are in a doctorate degree program in economics, or hope to join one, what should you do? If you’re truly brilliant and ambitious, you could take a free market path and seek recognition without the aid of certification. But keep in mind it could be a rough road you’ve chosen. ...
Why, then, did Hank suddenly turn in his resignation? His merit review lacked recognition of his accomplishment. Almost no one was surprised, except Hank. He said he had no job offers but was confident he could find something. I wasn’t so sure. He knew computers but lacked official certification. At our company, you were nobody if you didn’t have the right degrees. But, as we saw, they would gladly let nobodies do the job if no one else could.
Conclusion
What was true for corporate programmers fifty-five years ago is still true today for anyone seeking recognition in their field. With few exceptions, a fundamental requirement is an advanced degree, and colleges are allegiant to their paymasters, the interventionist government. Ray Kurzweil reached the top with only a BS from MIT. But not everyone is a Ray Kurzweil.
Economics is ruled by pretenders to knowledge, armed with intimidating equations and pseudo-scientific jargon. They are united in their rejection of free markets and sound money. Yet, as Mises has written:
The market economy needs no apologists and propagandists. It can apply to itself the words of Sir Christopher Wren’s epitaph in St. Paul’s: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. [If you seek his monument, look around.]
The status quo in economic theory doesn’t look around. To do so would be in conflict with reality. Both government and the economics professions supporting it are rackets and—as the decimation of the monetary unit makes painfully clear—they’re both headed for the graveyard.
Perhaps you can articulate why they will fail in sufficient detail and clarity that the lay public will wake up. But don’t count on a fat paycheck if you’re not sufficiently credentialed.
I have noticed the credentialist society problem for a long time, now. There is a misplaced dependence upon the credential of the college and the credential that the holder presents. It doesn't work, does it? One of the prime reasons is that any idiot student can earn high recognition, in terms of grades because of the current grade inflation. Another good reason not to trust the credential is that AI is a very good writer for the people willing to submit AI work as theirs, otherwise known as plagiarism. When do you think employers will figure this out? Do you think they will start implementing knowledge tests for incoming applicants when they understand credentials are useless?