Any day now the Bank of Sweden will announce a new Nobel economics laureate. He is also likely to be a dangerous crank. For many years, the great majority of recipients of the Swedish bauble have been advocates of extreme laissez-faire. As such, they have been precisely the people we have to thank for the radical financial deregulation that has blighted the lives of so many home buyers and small investors in the United States not to mention Ireland, Spain, and elsewhere.
There have been a few exceptions, most notably Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, both of whom have an honorable record of questioning financial deregulation before the crash. For the rest, most were part of the problem — and a big part. Their influence calls to mind the old joke that God invented economists to make astrologers look good.
It is not as if no one offered an unequivocal warning of trouble ahead. But remarkably few of the most prescient critics of financial "innovation" were card-carrying economists. Congress was acting on Wall Street's orders.
Predicting inflation in the short term
Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. Apart from the disability that he actually knows what he is talking about, his problem is that he has a mere master's in economics, not a doctorate, which is the union card of the economics profession. The mystery deepens when you realize that Swedish policymakers, in common with counterparts right across the most prosperous parts of central and northern Europe, secretly laugh at laissez-faire. The Swedes have excellent empirical reasons to sneer.
Learn more and compare subscriptions. Or, if you are already a subscriber Sign in. Close drawer menu Financial Times International Edition. Search the FT Search. World Show more World. US Show more US. Companies Show more Companies. And if editors want very much to distinguish between general views of astrology versus views of certain specific Eastern refinements, then that might belong in the page, but not in the lead.
No qualifier The statement is correct as written. I noticed that the Astrology article is included in 15 categories, which I find a bit much. When I look closer, I see that 9 of these Ancient astronomy, Divination, Early scientific cosmologies, Esoteric cosmology, Folklore, History of astronomy, History of ideas, New Age practices, and Pseudoscience are actually super-categories of Astrology. There are policies about when to include an article in both a category and its super-category , but I find these hard to understand and to apply in this case.
I would prefer to apply common sense: If someone is reading the Astrology article and wants to browse related topics, he would start with the Astrology category and then be lead anyway to the other categories. If someone is browsing, say, the Pseudoscience category, he can find the Astrology article through the Astrology category, he doesn't need a direct link.
In other words, I think it would be an improvement to remove the article from those 9 superfluous categories. No doubt, but why single out these two? It sounds weird. Surely all contemporary scientists regard astrology as unscientific, don't they? I propose the works of this author be mentioned in the article, to bring out the real diversity of views in academia on the subject of astrology. What follows is an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Given current assumptions about the cosmos, it is a scandal for a professor of philosophy to come out with a book that is in any way supportive of astrology.
I think it's safe to say that of all perspectives, astrology is the one most subject to automatic rejection and scorn in the modern intellectual world.
Quote Details: John Kenneth Galbraith: The only function of - The Quotations Page
I myself was skeptical until I conducted my own research. But the evidence is very compelling: There is an astonishingly consistent correlation between planetary alignments and the patterns of human experience. It's a little like Galileo's telescope: Anyone could look through it to see the new universe it revealed, but it was a scandal at the time. It combines impeccably meticulous scholarship and extraordinary clarity of thinking and writing with deep creative vision.
The evidence contained here represents the most significant challenge I have seen to the materialistic paradigm of modern science. The above is a bit narrow scope. Why do only the 'scientists' as 'scientific community' is linked to get to have their views represented? Given that things only pass into law as an expression of the belief and views of electorates put forward by ministers of parliament one could deduce that 'the people' of each nation consider it a pseudoscience or superstition.
About Barry Ritholtz
Therefore wouldn't the correct approach be to state that it IS a pseudoscience or superstition but is considered a belief system to those who believe in it? I've brought this discussion over here from Artw's talk page, per his request. In case the context is unclear at first, refer to this section's heading, which I've tried to make as self-explanatory as I could. Hi, I'm wondering if you'd explain what it is, exactly, that you feel is wrong with the lead as I've been putting it?
I saw this content was removed regarding Sanskrit terminology for asrology. I'm not familiar enough with this subject matter to determine whether it is important and relevant so I wonder if it should be left out, restored elsewhere in the article, or put back where it was? But I thought it might be worth discussing so I'm posting it here for consideration.
Retrieved A decision has been reached by a few editors to exclude from the lead information showing the multicultural roots of astrology, especially those showing its origins outside of the Western world. Moreover, the statement has been made that this article only deals with Western astrology. If this is so, I propose this article be rewritten and edited such that it fits this new narrower definition. It would then be retitled as Western Astrology.
Another article can then be written based on material currently in this article dealing with other traditions herein as well as a summary of the new Western astrology article. Such an article could then be titled Astrology and would have as a goal to describe astrology as a global and historical phenomen.
The new article would of course also be in English, unless, of course, there is a policy implied by these editors which states that English Wikipedia is restricted to deal only with phemoena in the Western world. Of course, the easiest solution, and which I favour, is to just keep this article as is and widen it to account for the complete historicity of the subject matter.
Odin 85th gen talk , 21 November UTC. Due to differences of view or lack of consensus on the inclusion of the terms used in different cultures to describe the concept of astrology, I propose to rearrange parts of lead, move disputed description of the word astrology to the relevant sections in the main body of the text and also remove citation to article by Rob Hand, as it is not supporting the claim made.
The proposed edit to the article shows this change, but may be reverted in total or part if there are strong feelings that this is not an improvement. However, please note that this issue should not be considered settled until editors are in agreement on a consensus. Odin 85th gen talk , 24 November UTC. I agree that Western practices probably are most prototypical of the English word, "astrology". But I think that a complete omission might be an instance of "undue non -weight" or something like that. If you'll pardon the huge shift in subject matter, consider the Spanish loanword , "chalupa".
Just as English-speakers might readily associate "astrology" with Anglo-European practices, so would Spanish-speakers most easily associate "chalupa" with a dish that bears hardly any resemblance to the well-known Taco Bell creation. But it would be counterintuitive for one to omit Taco Bell from the chalupa article--even from the lead, if that were a fuller article. Come to think of it, I think I've found the perfect spot for such a mention: The lead already includes the line, "Astrology has played an important role in the shaping of culture, early astronomy, the Vedas This is not the same paragraph that mentions "the scientific community", so I don't think it would lead to the aforementioned "glossing over".
The experimental approach tracing back most prominently to William James and Wilhelm Wundt does not assume a priori the validity of any psychological assertion. In contrast, the analytical approach founded by Carl Jung takes for granted certain things such as the existence of an unconscious mind or a collective unconscious , and therefore does not accept only a posteriori declarations. The relationship between Jungian psychology and astrology is discussed at length in a book entitled Psychological Astrology. Essentially, then, the reason for specifying "experimental" psychology is to indicate that psychological approach which does not regard "psychological" as an appropriate descriptor of "astrology".
Two things, re. The layout of this article desperately needs fixing.
The boxes and images are screwing it up. Very unprofessional appearance.source
Some of those boxes should be made into horizontal ones to place at the bottom. Should we mention the possible effect astrology has on global warming? Sorry couldn't resist. In what looks like an attempt to make astrology look respectable, an editor has made the following change to the lead.
- january 18 astrology sign.
- John Kenneth Galbraith quote: Economics exists to make astrology look respectable.;
- Galbraith, John Kenneth.
- taurus sunshine horoscope!
- Behavioral Economics - Trust Company of Kansas.
- Quotes - Jan Broulík.
Astrology is generally considered a pseudoscience or superstition by the scientific community , which cites a lack of statistically significant astrological predictions, while psychology explains much of the continued faith in astrology as a matter of cognitive biases. National Science Board published a statement which said it considers belief in ten survey items, astrology among them, to be " pseudoscientific ". This sentence is present in all three versions.
C The obvious solution is to return this passage to the excellent state in which it was until February — with one exception: The first sentence should stand on its own, as a separate paragraph, to highlight its importance just in case someone doesn't get it. The sentence was previously attached to the end of the first paragraph. You are grasping at straws that aren't even there. The rest of your comments are more misleading wikilawyering designed to deprecate the National Science Board and cast doubt on this improvement of the existing content which even accomodated one of your objections.