> Why do they persist with models that don't represent reality despite knowing it?
Why do physicists ignore friction whenever possible?
In general, for any task, you take the simplest model that represents the aspects of reality that you care about. But you stay aware of the limits. That's true in physics or engineering just as much as in economics.
That's why NASA uses Newtonian mechanics for all their rocket science needs, even though they have heard of General Relativity.
That's why people keep using models known to have limits.
> [...] sage voices echo the standard dogma [...]
You do know that most of published economics is about the limits of the 'standard dogma'? That's what gets you published. I often wish people would pay more attention to the orthodox basics, but confirming well-known rules isn't interesting enough for the journals.
So if eg you can do some data digging and analysis that can show that maybe under this very specific circumstances restriction on free trade might perhaps increase national wealth, that can get you published. But the observation that most of the time free trade, even if the other guy has tariffs, is the optimal policy, is too boring to get published.
Compare also crap like 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' that catapults its author to stardom with its comparatively boring refutation by orthodox economists that no one cares about.
> [...] dragged into the doldrums by policy posed by useless models.
Most orthodox economics is pretty unanimous about basic policies: for free trade, against occupational licensing, for free migration, for free movement of capital, for simple taxes without loopholes, against messing with the currency, against corruption, against subsidies, for taxes instead of bans (eg on drugs, or emissions, or guns), against price floors or ceilings or other price controls, etc.
Many doldrums happen when policy ignores or contradicts these basic ideas. Alas, economics 101 is not popular with the electorate almost anywhere.
Many of the policies you mentioned sound great in a world of spherical cows but break down in the real world.
For example you say a basic policy is a tax on guns instead of a ban. First of all I dispute that is even orthodox economics. Second there is some strong evidence that gun bans reduce violence.
Free migration is another one. It is an insanely complicated issue in the real world. No country has 100% free migration or they wouldn’t be a country. There are all kinds of very complex rules and effects of these rules. And it is not clear that “free migration” is “good”. (I am sure the native americans probably didn’t like the free migration)
> For example you say a basic policy is a tax on guns instead of a ban. First of all I dispute that is even orthodox economics. Second there is some strong evidence that gun bans reduce violence.
First, I apologize for using guns as an example. That's a needlessly divisive topic. The general principle of 'taxes instead of bans' is rather orthodox. You see that more often applied to the example of drugs or emissions.
Second, what evidence do you have for gun bans reducing violence? And reduce violence compared to what baseline?
I am very willing to believe that if you compare a free-for-all with a ban on guns, that the latter will see less violence. (I haven't looked into the evidence. Results might differ depending on details and on when and where you do that, and who gets exceptions to the bans. Eg police and military presumably are still allowed guns? Hunters probably as well? Etc. It's not so important.)
My point is that in terms of violent crime avoided, a situation where each gun and each bullet comes with a million dollar tax would be statistically indistinguishable from a ban.
And in practice, a less severe tax would probably be enough to achieve those goals whilst still preserving access to guns for those who prefer it that way.
> No country has 100% free migration or they wouldn’t be a country.
What kind of definition of 'country' are you using here that breaks down in this way? (And what do you mean by '100%'? How nitpicky do you want to be?)
> A rapid expansion of railway infrastructure and wealth in Europe beginning in the mid-nineteenth century led to large increases in the volume of international travel and a consequent unique dilution of the passport system for approximately thirty years prior to World War I. The speed of trains, as well as the number of passengers that crossed multiple borders, made enforcement of passport laws difficult. The general reaction was the relaxation of passport requirements.[18] In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was a relatively straightforward procedure. Consequently, comparatively few people held passports.
> During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons, and to control the emigration of people with useful skills. These controls remained in place after the war, becoming a standard, though controversial, procedure. British tourists of the 1920s complained, especially about attached photographs and physical descriptions, which they considered led to a "nasty dehumanisation".[19] The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act was passed in 1914, clearly defining the notions of citizenship and creating a booklet form of the passport.
Btw, Switzerland as a country does not restrict immigration. That's left to the Kantone (which are sort-of the equivalent to American states). Yet, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Switzerland is not a country. If memory serves right, the US used to have similar arrangements in their past?
> Most orthodox economics is pretty unanimous about basic policies: for free trade, against occupational licensing, for free migration, for free movement of capital, for simple taxes without loopholes, against messing with the currency, against corruption, against subsidies, for taxes instead of bans (eg on drugs, or emissions, or guns), against price floors or ceilings or other price controls, etc
It's interesting that if you oblige your models to fit a set of policy positions then they return that set of policy positions and are pretty useless in general. A cynic might say that's by design.
Orthodox macroeconomic modelling is laughably naive and mathematically wrong before even getting to the basic issues of failure to validate. Let's not compare it to disciplines where validation is the entire point.
Your rhetoric clearly shows you don't want to think too critically about this so I'll sign off now.
Why do physicists ignore friction whenever possible?
In general, for any task, you take the simplest model that represents the aspects of reality that you care about. But you stay aware of the limits. That's true in physics or engineering just as much as in economics.
That's why NASA uses Newtonian mechanics for all their rocket science needs, even though they have heard of General Relativity.
That's why people keep using models known to have limits.
> [...] sage voices echo the standard dogma [...]
You do know that most of published economics is about the limits of the 'standard dogma'? That's what gets you published. I often wish people would pay more attention to the orthodox basics, but confirming well-known rules isn't interesting enough for the journals.
So if eg you can do some data digging and analysis that can show that maybe under this very specific circumstances restriction on free trade might perhaps increase national wealth, that can get you published. But the observation that most of the time free trade, even if the other guy has tariffs, is the optimal policy, is too boring to get published.
Compare also crap like 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' that catapults its author to stardom with its comparatively boring refutation by orthodox economists that no one cares about.
> [...] dragged into the doldrums by policy posed by useless models.
Most orthodox economics is pretty unanimous about basic policies: for free trade, against occupational licensing, for free migration, for free movement of capital, for simple taxes without loopholes, against messing with the currency, against corruption, against subsidies, for taxes instead of bans (eg on drugs, or emissions, or guns), against price floors or ceilings or other price controls, etc.
Many doldrums happen when policy ignores or contradicts these basic ideas. Alas, economics 101 is not popular with the electorate almost anywhere.