<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Nov 28, 2558 BE, at 12:42 PM, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="im" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Chris Hibbert </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:cth.mydruthers@gmail.com" target="_blank">cth.mydruthers@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span></div></span><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="im" style="font-size: 12.8px;"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>The reason it's called the "dismal science" is<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that economics can't be relied on to produce a consensus that your<br>favorite social intervention will have the consequences you want.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: 12.8px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><font size="4">Yes, economics is far more vulnerable than other sciences to assume that if fact X about the way the universe works would lead to a more just society then fact X must be true. But nature is not interested in human justice, a fact is either true or it is not and justice be damned.</font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: 12.8px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><font size="4"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size: 12.8px; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><font size="4">Perhaps it's just simpler to say there is a whole lot of wishful thinking is going on. </font></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>It seems to me that Chris meant that economics tends to NOT support 'wishful thinking.' Hence the 'dismal science' epithet. It's dismal because people who want a social policy (e.g., minimum wage laws, trade restrictions, price floors and ceilings, subsidies to favored industries or groups) to overcome some problem find no encouragement from sound economic theory.<br><div><br></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books via:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#000000">http://author.to/DanUst</font></a></div></div></div></body></html>