BuffoNobel for the economy.

Since the world has better things to do, not everyone has followed the story of the Nobel Prize in economics. And they did well, since it is a (former) scam, that is, the prize was born as a scam.

A handful of banks decided to award a prize to economic writings, naming them after Nobel, without the real Foundation being involved. As a result, people heard "Nobel Prize in Economics" and thought it was the real Nobel. A scam, in short.

Then the Swedish royals intervened, the prize was placed under the control of the Foundation, and it was said that "the next who tries it spends billions of years paying us the damages." So it is assumed to be the latest scam of the kind. It's supposed. This is to say that if you don't give it weight, you have some motivation: the scientific ethics of the economists, who after all have lent themselves to this scam for years.

But few have read the content of this year's paper. Good. I'll give you a summary. The latest nobel in economics says:

"Instead of doing as before, when we come up with an economic theory it would be wise, perhaps, to test experimentally if what the theory says is true".

Now, perhaps you will say that Galileo Galilei had said this "some time before". And it's true.

Because in fact this Nobel Prize is a confession, an admission of guilt, a kind of "wait, what?" Moment.

In practice, they candidly admitted that until now the theories of economists were COMPLETELY CAMP IN AIR.

It is not surprising that when the mathematicians arrive (see Nash, but also Sen, Arrow and others) their theories fall like Sandra Milo's breasts. But the point is that in fact, the new paper tells us one thing.

"So far, listening to an economist, all we have heard was a horoscope."

By reading more in detail, you find out one thing. That what they are asking in the paper is not even a true double-blind experiment. They don't go that far.

And it is not even a real experiment: if you do an experiment on electromagnetic radiation try to make it happen in an isolated situation, where there is no neighbors' radio to disturb the measurement. But their "examples" (those cited in the paper) do not take place in this situation, and we do not see any kind of research in this direction. They don't even try, in short.

All that remains of the "experimental method", as described in the paper, is some anecdotal: "they said that the citizenship income did not work, instead my cousin says that in his village it works".

So, if the intent was to say " we should begin to experimentally verify the economic theories we write ", in reality if we change it to the modern scientific method it becomes " we should be careful that there is no anecdote that will give us wrong, when we enunciate a theory ".

But the incredible thing is not the fact that, in 2021, someone will find the experimental method convenient. It's only 400-odd years behind, after all.

The problem is what the discourse implies: FIRST in writing theories one was completely abstracted from reality. Not even the anecdotes. Talking about Aristotelianism is kind.

The so-called "macroeconomics", so far, has consisted of a series of horoscopes.

But why, even in the world of big data, don't you try to dare to use the enormous quantities of financial data we have to even do a double-blind test of the theories?

The problem is that pseudosciences in general view double-blind tests with a very bad eye. And not just pseudoscience.

Years ago some chemistry faculties began to become suspicious about Sommeliers. They claimed to be able to perceive the chemical qualities of the wine that yes, they existed, but the stoichiometry of the problem did not allow the HUMAN senses (obviously a molecular hound can perceive the "fruity bouquet": it has all the nerves and receptors that are needed): the quantity of substances was too small, and perhaps only 10% of the human population had the possibility to really perceive what the sommeliers say they perceive.

Until the statisticians came and started testing. AND….

And what happens if we take a white wine and color it red? Will all the characteristics of red wine magically appear? Well yes.

As you can see, it is possible to take any "junk science" (until the arrival of the double-blind tests). Wine tasting is one of them: the human species DOES NOT HAVE enough nerve receptors to do what sommeliers say they do. Surely in the laboratory a chemist could also do it, and maybe a molecular hound will be able to tell you even more, smelling a wine, but a human being CANNOT do it. And only very few people in the world have an olfactory memory.

The same goes for the so-called "sense of fashion": the fact that the fashion industry is based on nothing is now proven by dozens and dozens of people:

There are many such “skills” and they will still exist, especially in a period in which “solid” skills are absorbed by the world of machines.

The real problem is that skills in "economics" are passed off as robust skills, such as those for, say me, medicine or biology. If you take the Twitter “debunkari” as an example, you find Burioni, but you also find Puglisi, who continues to throw up esoteric formulas that use mathematical symbols on people, without any of the economic theories ever being tested experimentally.

And suddenly, in the sea of ​​Aristotelianisms that characterize economic "science", someone arrives, says that perhaps they should look for pale examples of anecdotes capable of "denying" the theories, sells them as "experiments", and wins the Nobel of Economics, formerly the junk Prize.

What to say? That the 2008 economic crisis had a fruity bouquet.

And the "economists" are just the astrologers of today. Go ahead and get a horoscope from them, but don't complain if you find out that your ascendant changed sex last night.