As I'm reading through this thread, I was struck by an article by Krugman on economic theory and practice. The theory assumes 1. perfect communication and 2. fair competition. In practice, the assumptions are often wrong. Throughout the last two decades, economists thought their theories had finally described and evolved to a point where capitalism was perfect and the marketplace could run itself without any regulation. Obviously, that did not happen. Capitalism is not dead (as some suggest) nor is it evil (as Michael Moore is attempting to promote). It is a human endeavor- one that will continue to ebb and flow with (self and outside) corrections.
In the same way, COIN is a study of war that is heavily influenced by social scientist b/c it involves people. Social science produces theories, not laws. I would suggest that we take a closer look at some of our assumptions in our own theories on COIN, and learn a little bit from the mistakes of the economists. I really don't want to read articles/books ten years from now about how CNAS or SWJ or whoever got it wrong. I think we can still get it right. BW, Slap, Marc, and Ken are on the way towards that path.
Thoughts? More directly, what assumptions in our present constructs should be challenged?
v/r
Mike
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?
Paul Krugman
NY Times
It’s hard to believe now, but not long ago economists were congratulating themselves over the success of their field. Those successes — or so they believed — were both theoretical and practical, leading to a golden era for the profession. On the theoretical side, they thought that they had resolved their internal disputes. Thus, in a 2008 paper titled “The State of Macro” (that is, macroeconomics, the study of big-picture issues like recessions), Olivier Blanchard of M.I.T., now the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, declared that “the state of macro is good.” The battles of yesteryear, he said, were over, and there had been a “broad convergence of vision.” And in the real world, economists believed they had things under control: the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved,” declared Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago in his 2003 presidential address to the American Economic Association. In 2004, Ben Bernanke, a former Princeton professor who is now the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, celebrated the Great Moderation in economic performance over the previous two decades, which he attributed in part to improved economic policy making.
Last year, everything came apart.
Bookmarks