Extended Interview Regarding my New Book

Tom O’Brien is a very knowledgeable and insightful interviewer.  The URL for earlier interviews on his program is


The URL for the interview is


By the way, the latest title of the book is Work, the Economy, and Economic Ideology: And Exploratory Political Economy of the Dangerous and Paradoxical Interactions of these Three Faulty Pillars of Society.  I would very much appreciate any criticism and suggestions about the material discussed in this interview. Thank you very much.


5 comments so far

  1. Jurriaan Bendien on

    It’s a very interesting topic. Yet I am not really sure that I understand what your intention is with this book, and what you want to communicate with it. It is certainly true that leftwing people have often tended to assume that the powerful know what they are doing, while in reality they didn’t. But if you push that argument too far, it becomes difficult to understand how leftists can do any better, if perchance they gained power and assumed the place previously taken by their political enemy. As far as I am concerned, if we live in an era of cultural pessimism, we would do well to emphasize what is feasible and what can be achieved, rather than focus too much on klutzy decisionmaking which stuffed things up. Of course one needs a healthy dose of skepticism and cynicism, but too much of it is hardly erudite.

  2. Sheldon on

    Well if the the few and powerful make foolish mistakes, whether it be capitalist states, or “Communist” states, then maybe Perelman is suggesting that radically democratic socialism where more of the decision making comes from below is better.

  3. Scott Malec on

    More goodness on Smith’s pilfering: http://tefelhall.com/globalissues/Documents/toadamsmith.htm

  4. zeissikon on

    It seems that economics is not really a falsifiable science (most of the predictions are unverified). Economics use a lot of mathematics, but we do not even know why mathematics works in the natural sciences. Why should it work in describing human behavior (such as pointed out in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/methodological-individualism/) and “unknown unknowns” as Nassim Taleb pointed out in “the Black Swan” , such as panics or sudden wars ? Besides, being either communist, liberals, maoists or socialists, it seems that politicians are only using economics as a toolbox to “scientifically” justify their own, biased and often corrupt decision-making. Worst, the model of “perpetual growth” with soon face multiple physical walls, in form of energy, land, materials, etc, (as pointed out by http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/). The virtual economy is indeed not that virtual, relying on computers and networks. Why do no one ever listen to the physicists who promote a stable economy for thermodynamical reasons, or to the environmentalists who do the same for ecological reasons ? Why are the economists who made wrong predictions “unpublished” like the scientists who where wrong or cheated ? (Schön, the “N rays”, Lyssenko, etc, etc) Why is such a post, on reddit for instance, or to an economic scientist facebook pahe, going to be downvoted to oblivion, ignored, redirected to “rants”, suppressed because it is attacking an institution, etc, etc ? Why can I not even point out methodological problems in economical publications, such as cherry picking samples, abuse of “correlation is causation”, overfitting, underfitting of curves, chaotic models with too many parameters which end up only being a simple linear regression making predictions only for the next year, etc, etc ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: