By introducing rational qualifiers.

My guess is that the visceral antipathy to all the boffins is - that they tend to perpetuate the idiotic ideas that (say)

A) The Market is... anything other than a highly idealized er 'massless rod of length h'.

B) That its entire dynamic may be expressed in mathematical model, displayed in 2D or nD 'graphs' -- which 'explain' it all. (Though unlike the scientific ideal: rarely predict events with more than owl-entrail accuracy)

Agreed that we 'want' Some methodology a bit better than owl-entrails; it's our nature to seek explanations (some folk even imagine there's an ontological 'proof' of er God!).

I suggest that the concept 'market forces' is simply an open-ended labelled container into which, with perfect 20/20 hindsight: are tossed each new factor as was seen to have affected That particular run-up or run-down; factors as varied as The Weather and -

Imagine an idea, sufficiently sophisticatedly noised about that:
The phosphorous in Coke (the liquid kind) + the accumulated random DNA from the millions of steer carcasses intermixed into any one Big Mac: are asymptotically approaching a certain date (elapsed time) ~ a la Code Red algorithm - at which time flaming kidney stones shall appear in millions of fast-diners, all within a likely window of just 'weeks' = excruciating pain!

(How many $B support, feed-off UFO sightings overall?)

Economists thus purport that their algorithms work, yet that 'market forces' container is as malleable as gold leaf hammered between leather sheets. It's no nearer a science (however unarguably it is Dismal) than is 'socio'logy; but it must pay well, and soothe lots of CIEIOs - and after all they Are the most important ones to buy the snake oil: they own most of the stuff (even the patented ideas!)

[/Aummmm]: Dollllarrrrzzzzz



Unite against the Dismal Doctors of Deception