Are we relying on too many self-proclaimed experts?
We were told of what could, and did, happen to the econoly by a variety of experts whose bona fides were never established by the media or anyone else. Now, we're getting all sorts of solutions suggested by many of the same people who have yet to prove their expertise. I don't buy a theoretical expertise, I want someone who has been there and proven him/herself. What do you think? The economy has tanked before, has been precarious before, so I'm not accepting that there isn't anyone who was there before.
- AlvieLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Trusting the experts to solve current economic problems is a risky thing to do. Because there is no widespread agreement about which economic theories are best. And if you choose to trust the wrong experts. Then you will end up with an even worse mess than before.
The current economic mess was largely created as a result of government policies recommended by economic experts. And trusting the same experts fix it now probably is not a good idea. Because they'll probably make things worse and not better.
Perhaps some other experts who disagree with previous experts should be allowed to take charge and see if their economic theories are more correct.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I think that there are definitely too many "answer people" in the media, but this may be due to another economic trend: RATINGS! Getting On Top-Seller's Lists, for example. There are opportunists who see their chance at exploiting the situation to make $$ or further their careers, and media outlets that are seeking to make sales and get ratings, and with people all scared and what-not, someone talking like they know what they are talking about gives the public reassurance, even if the news isn't too hot (or for that matter tested accurate or reliable!), and the media market knows this and plays off this fear and confusion.
I agree with you that the expertise has little bearing on something as complex as global markets and economies. Look at Greenspan...once a guru, now a poo-poo. Is he the fall guy? Who knows? But a lot of people are criticizing him now. Making historical comparisons is rediculous, unless you're just gonna say, "It sucked then, and hey, guess what? It sucks now!". Apples and Oranges.
- kohelLv 44 years ago
The U.S. structure is written in effortless English and says what it says in spite of what attorneys in black gowns ought to or ought to no longer say. Article a million, section 9, Clause 3 - u . s . structure "No bill of Attainder or ex submit facto regulation will be surpassed." you do not must be a Constitutional regulation specialist to be in a position to really examine the structure. factor a million: An ex submit facto regulation is a regulation surpassed after the actual actuality. The bonuses exist already. Passing a regulation to take them away is an ex submit facto regulation. factor 2: A bill of attainder is a legislative act announcing someone responsible of against the law with out trial and subjecting that human being to some type of punishment. attorneys in black gowns holding something so does no longer make it so. perfect courtroom judgements ought to correctly be and function been overturned. Precedent does no longer equivalent eternal actuality.
- HadTheSurgeryLv 41 decade ago
Economists are less reliable than weathermen. I've seen Nostradamus predict things more reliably.
The only time economists make a decent living is in times like these when doofs stop and listen to anyone with a four year degree in econ or poli sci.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Many of these people who are loudmouthing about what has to be done and done NOW! are the very ones who caused the problem in the first place. Best thing to do is to ignore all of them; they know nothing.