No economist, except perhaps Steve Keen, will admit that they are in a market for theories and that those with the most money, ie the ones most invested in the current model, make the best customers. So naturally those economic theories that support thsoe vested interests will get the most air, regardless of their validity.
And the SMH's Jessica Irvine makes a little hay on the strength of that, incidentally undermining most of what her business writers are saying.
Heard the one about the physicist, chemist and economist stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a tin of baked beans? The physicist suggests forcing it open by hurling the tin against a rock at the correct velocity. The chemist proposes lighting a fire to cause it to explode.Yep, exactly.
The economist shakes her head and assures them they are going about it the wrong way: ''First we must assume we have a can opener.''
Economists' predictions are only as good as the models and assumptions underpinning them.
The debate raging about the Federal Government's emissions trading scheme shows clearly how ''economic modelling'' can be perverted by vested interests to suit their own purposes.
Industry groups have jumped on the economic modelling bandwagon with increasing enthusiasm, attempting to hijack a range of public debates, and drive threatening policies off the nearest cliff.
But there's another message built into this story. Its about why corporate media really don't get what they are supposed to be doing.
Have alook at the graphic that is supposed to illustrate the story. Its one thing to ping someone's theories, but you do need to make sure your own house is in order.