Wednesday, March 07, 2012
What is wrong with the whole discussion over our alleged ‘technocratic’ elite is indicated when Ben-Ami writes: ‘In many ways, economics is the discipline best suited to the technocratic mindset.’China, where everybody in the Preasidium has an engineering or accountancy degree or Singapore where the next generation of the leading party get handpicked from the proven competent can claim tom be technocracies. Britain is run by people who studied the dilettantee degree of PPE (politics, philosophy and economics) and are thus not properly competent at any of these, and wholly incompetent at any "technical" subject.
"Technocrat" means someone who understands how the technology works. If there is a science (excluding ‘creation science’, homeopathy and the ‘science of catastrophic global warming’) whose practitioners do not understand how things work, as proven by an inability to make successful predictions, it is economics. Arguably the Austrian school is relatively close to accurate prediction, but, for that reason, they are not mainstream.
In fact the new breed of self-described ‘technocrats’ are simply the same old lobbyists and politicians who got us here into the current mess in the first place. They are merely claiming a new and false authority.
The imposed prime minister of Greece is one of the economic ‘technocrats’ who fiddled the figures to get Greece into the euro in the first place.
If an engineer built a bridge with anything even slightly approaching the level of incompetence and fraud the EU ‘technocrats’ have displayed in building the euro (a much simpler matter than any bridge), they would, rightly, be in jail. If I started performing brain surgery without having any competence in the subject I would face imprisonment. Why shouldn’t someone claiming to be a ‘technocrat’ without the necessary proven competence?
This might be a worthwhile opportunity to put up another comments of mine Spiked didn't use:
Simon Singh , while he has scientific degrees is not really a practising scientist but a science reporter popularised by the BBC. Like those given publicity by the media he is a supporter of catastrophic warming alarmism.
Directly relevent to his challenge to Morgan is that he was challeneged to answer 7 questions about warming, all of which it would be possible to answer supportively if a warming catastrophe were, in fact, true.
He has repeatedly refused to answer any of them, despite publicly supporting the scare and the conclusion is inescapable that he knows he cannot because the catastrophic warming scare is a deliberate fraud.
If you are going to claim others have no respect for science you cannot honourably act like that.