A prime logic failure of many "economists" today is the circular reasoning that is employed. For many so-called Keynesians, if the economy is weak, its the responsibility of the government to "stimulate" it. It must not be left alone for a second! If the economy continues to weaken post-"stimulus", economists will confidently state the problem, " You did not use enough stimulus!" Upon firmly applying 20x the amount of "stimulus", the Keynesian economist would not second-guess the stimulus issue at all.
Although economics has claimed to be a science, it seems to rest entirely on theory and very little on empirical outcomes (see last post for other examples).
-In the real world, excessive use of antibiotics in hospital patients can lead to resistant bacterial strains ("super bacteria"). As such, if antibiotics are not having the desired effect, intelligent doctors will seek alternate treatment methods or prescriptions.
-In the real world, when you throw water on a grease fire and it simply spreads the fire further, a fireman will not tell you to throw more water on the grease. He will suggest a different course of action.
-In the real world, when a little child discovers that his square peg will not fit through a round hole, he plays around until he finds the right peg for the right hole
None of these empirical realities towards problem-solving is utilized by so-called "economists". Which begs the question, if economists have no benchmark to determine when their monetary experiment has failed, how will they know when to shut it down?