Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
I am a regular subscriber to the website WhoWhatWhy written by investigative journalist Russ Baker. Recently he ran a response by one of his readers, Dave Parker, to a video Russ posted of Nick Hanuer, a billionaire venture capitalist who gave a talk at TED, which is an acronym for the non-profit, Technology, Entertainment and Design, TED holds conferences around the world on business/societal issues that relate to its theme. In his talk Mr. Hanuer dispelled the idea that the Rich create wealth and instead said it was really the middle-classes that drove the economy. He disparaged the idea that it is the entrepreneurs who are the “job creators”. Although the talk was well received by the conference attendees, TED curiously chose not to publicize it as it usually does with other such talks. Perhaps their decision was because Mr. Hanuer’s thesis goes against the current widely accepted mythology regarding job creation and entrepreneurship. Here is a video of his talk:
In his comment on this video, Dave Parker used the writings of Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell was:
“an American mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work is vast, covering many aspects of the human experience.”
My reading Dave’s article was the type of moment where you can imagine me slapping my head and exclaiming: “Damn, why didn’t I think of that”. Indeed, I’ve read all of Campbell’s books and seen all of his famed PBS series of interviews, done with Bill Moyers. What follows is my jumping off from Mr. Parker’s excellent comments and any credit for what I’m writing here goes to him for his perception. In applying Campbell to Mr. Hanuer’s comments, Dave solidified a concept for me that’s been playing in my head for years about the 1%’s need to increase the disparity between themselves and everyone else . The Rich are trying to create a new kind of feudalism where Lordships are won not on battlefields, but in corporate boardrooms. The rest of us need to be impoverished because without serfs to worship them, having everything ultimately becomes boring. Some of the 1% no doubt are less ego-driven and have empathy for those not on their level, but even they are beneficiaries of a mythology in creation. I believe that this mythology is the result of a campaign waged since the supporters of Barry Goldwater went down to an inglorious defeat.
Joseph Campbell spent his life studying and teaching about mythology. This is a word that usually evokes images of the Hindu, Greek, Roman and Norse Gods. In a way, for some, mythology has become conflated with paganism. To Christians, Muslims and Jews of fundamentalist beliefs mythology is the other guys religion, when in fact it is also true of their own. However, Campbell did not stop with religion as mythology, he saw it as a driving force shaping human behavior and thus also studied the effects of cultural and political beliefs on human societies. Below is his sense of the role mythology plays in shaping ourselves and our societies via what Campbell calls the “Four Functions of Myth” taken from Campbell’s: “Pathways to Bliss (Novato, CA: New World Library), pp 6-10.”, I will discuss how these functions play out today to shape our collective views of the world.
One salient piece of Campbell’s history should be looked at before showing how these elements of mythological creation have been used in America, to lay the groundwork for a Corporate Feudalism, that will leave enthrone 1% as our Nobility. Dave Parker gives a side of Campbell that I was not aware of and I feel explains much:
“Campbell himself lectured for the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute for Decades, beginning 1956.……………That tells me that ever since the greed heads and warmongers at State and elsewhere have been steeped in a perverse reading of Campbell’s work. They read it for its utilitarian value in pursuing “National Security”. And the “successes” of the Feds are envied and emulated in the world of corporate propagandizing”
My suspicions are that we are being led via popular culture and the redefinition of celebrity, into a mindset that opens the door for Corporate Feudalism and indeed shapes the attitudes of most people. These are Campbell’s Four Functions of Mythology (.pdf):
1. …the first function of mythology [is] to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful, affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence
2. The second function of mythology is to present an image of the cosmos, an image of the universe round about, that will maintain and elicit this experience of awe. [or] …to present an image of the cosmos that will maintain your sense of mystical awe and explain everything that you come into contact with in the universe around you.
3. The third function of a mythological order is to validate and maintain a certain sociological system: a shared set of rights and wrongs, proprieties or improprieties, on which your particular social unit depends for its existence.
4. …the fourth function of myth is psychological. That myth must carry the individual through the stages of his life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. The mythology must do so in accords with the social order of his group, the cosmos as understood by his group”
As sentient beings, self-involved, the fear of our inevitable demise is primary to our existence. This gives rise in us to yearnings for meaning in our lives and purpose to our lives. Most of us need the comfort that when our inevitable end comes, we will continue to exist in some form. Beyond religion though, we are essentially social beings, who have learned the benefit of co-existence with other members of our species. In shaping our society it is essential that we have some over-arching concept that something exists around us to keep us safe from the terrors that are the legacy of our predatory past. We develop words like Republic, Democracy, Islamism, Libertarianism, Fascism and others of that ilk that provide individuals with a sense of something larger than themselves that provide protection for us and give meaning to our lives. In tandem to those words connoting societal structure are conflated words relating to the economic systems we live under such as Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism etc. In truth all of these words meanings varies with each individuals perception of their meanings.
Most Americans have been inculcated with a set of mythological buzzwords if you will, that connote our Country’s notion of “exceptionalism“. We have been taught that America is a “Republican Democracy” thriving under a “Capitalist” economic system that provides us “Freedom”. We use symbols such as our Flag, our Anthem, and our Constitution to invoke the “grateful, affirmative awe” that Campbell describes. We are proud to be Americans and most importantly we feel protected by our mythology.
These mythological symbols have been translated by our government beginning in WWII and throughout the “Cold War” into awe inspiring emotions within us. Even as I try maintain a skeptical distance between myself and the myth of America’s Dream, I am also emotionally stirred by the evocation of this mythology, that approaches the “grateful awe” of which Campbell speaks. My sense of that awe is limned by my understanding that America’s Constitution nowhere mentions Capitalism, or even sets up a national economic system, so when I see this economic theory conflated with the notion of Freedom my hackles rise. I imagine this is not true for the majority of Americans and this has led to the widespread belief in the “American Dream” and our viewpoint that even the least among us can achieve untold success. People seem to not want to vote in their own self interest. It is this notion of the “American Dream” that has allowed taxation to become inequitable to the point where the rich pay a lesser percentage of their income than the rest of the people, yet many of those shouldering this burden are lured by the siren call of “no more taxes” for fear that they will be burdened once their own success is achieved.
This matches well with another piece of the American mythological order in that there is the widespread concept of a “free market” being the apex of economic freedom. Thus all economic problems can be solved by ensuring that the “free market” is allowed to reign undisturbed by selfish manipulations of the government. The argument about whether there even is such a thing as a “free market” I’ll leave for another day. It is incontrovertible though, that this is a belief of a large majority of Americans and certainly has fared well in the political context. In the notion though of a “free market” comes a further notion that those who partake in the market’s freedom, indeed the movers and shakers of the market itself, are the “real heroes” of the “American Dream”. The Entrepreneur is held up as the most meritorious among us, because it is the Entrepreneur whose efforts create all of the blessings we share in common. The definition of entrepreneur of course is quite stretchable and leads from people of modest birth like Buffett/Gates, to those whose fortunes have been inherited like the Koch Brothers/Walton’s/Trump’s.
If our society is driven by these entrepreneurs then of course their status is rightfully at the top of our particular American food chain. They become sources to be venerated, copied, modeled after and of course envied. I believe they are well aware of this, luxuriate in their Alpha positions and assume the trappings suited to their status. Interestingly, many of the scions of “Old Wealth” in this country eschew the immodest lifestyle, thinking it gauche and nouveau riche. While their living standard reflects the elite into which they were born, they don’t feel the need to flaunt it like those parveneau’s such as Trump. For the masses of us we understand on some level that the Mellon’s for instance, are better than we, even though they don’t comport themselves in a way that draws publicity. Our role models for wealth come from those such as Donald Trump, who beyond his money and/or accomplishment, branded himself as the epitome of wealth and living luxuriously, even though his example is one of gaudy ostentation in the worst of taste. He is the entrepreneur as version of the Movie Star, which has been so confused with success and the “American Dream” that one became President and another the Governor of California.
Awe can be described as “a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder”. This in truth is the way many of us view the elite of this country. This has been reinforced time and again by both media and by those in Academia who have functioned as their minions. It has also been the thrust of a massive propaganda campaign to disparage “liberalism” and turn the country towards what was redefined as a “conservative”viewpoint. I believe that viewpoint is less about political philosophy and more about solidifying the hold upon this country of a newly defined aristocracy. We are in “awe” of these our bettors, just as much as the medieval peasantry was in awe of the nobility of their day. Back then the gossip about the local Dukes latest mistress was as interesting and as titillating as Tom Cruise’s divorce, or The Kardashian’s TV show.
In medieval times entertainers were considered to be much less reputable, even while sharing relatively wide fame. Shakespeare was considered disreputable despite his fame in his day. Today entertainers are lionized as members of the elite which is mainly to conflate their fame with that of the Corporate/Inherited Elite, thus borrowing their glamour for the latter. In our society today the doings of the super-rich and other celebrities has become mainstream news. HGTV, for instance, has three programs dedicated to lovingly show the housing of the rich in New York, LA and London. The edifice homes, some costing as much as $50 million are displayed to us peasants for what reasons exactly, if not to inspire us with awe at the lives of our “betters“? Can we all remember the adulation poured out on the passing of Steve Jobs? He certainly was a man who made many contributions, but from his deification one would think he was directly transported to Valhalla. There is deification of our Armed Forces as the heroic exemplars of all that is good and true in America, yet are true gratitude is such that 50% of their families are on Food Stamps. Remember the hushed tones in which the news media portrayed General Petreus? That polls have shown many Americans to believe Ronald Reagan was our “Greatest President” is yet another example of the conflation of celebrity with supposed greatness. Neither Petreus, nor Reagan were either super-rich or super-competent, but they were treated with the deference of nobility and that is the point. We hold all these symbols in awe and the underlying message is one of gratitude to them for showing us what to aspire to and by leading us benighted fools through example. Jesus is of course the ultimate myth since in the opinion of many his decisions control our lives for eternity. “What would Jesus do” is a question asked by multitudes and many have been led to believe that if returned today he would be our ultimate entrepreneur.
This returns us full circle to Mr. Hanuer dispelling the idea that the “rich” create wealth. They are not in the end the “job creators” that Mr. Romney and conservative “wisdom” would have us believe. Yet I must acknowledge that a sizable number of Americans would take exception to that assertion. I think too that the “creator” part of that meme is one fraught with connotation. Just as religion deems that God created the world, isn’t there a strong inference with the term “job creator” that would lead one to feel that the Entrepreneur created America. Doesn’t the mythological creature in that reference stand above the Founding Fathers in our current mythological reference of America being the most exceptional country in history? I believe we are blinded by this American mythology to such an extent that the problems we face as a society will not be fully recognized until it is too late and we will collapse in the shattering realization that so many of our life perceptions are mythological in origin.
Adolph Hitler took a shattered country with a hyper-inflated, impoverished economy and through the brilliance of a master of mythology, Joseph Goebbels, created a world power with the potential for empire. NAZI Germany’s destruction though came about chiefly because the mythologists began to believe, along with those they had gulled, that their mythology was absolute truth and that they the “Master Race“ would prevail against all odds. Fresh from the incredible triumph of World War II and with the evidence of the most impressive military/industrial buildup in history, our politicians and public became convinced of the “exceptional nature” of the United States. We discovered another implacable foe to oppose and fought a new kind of war on a global basis. That having ended with the USSR’s collapse the country’s elite searched for new “enemies” with which to keep our military occupied and our defense industry rich. Perhaps the culmination of the idea of our country’s exceptional nature came with the writing of the “Project For The New American Century” a design to make the United States into an Empire in the Twenty-First Century. The two main guiding architects of that manifesto were Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, who also were the architects of the two wars in which we are still enmeshed.
Joseph Campbell correctly believed that mythology serves as a glue to maintain human beings in the close relationship of society, to give meaning to our lives and to give us inspiration to progress and achieve heretofore unthought-of accomplishments. Mythology though can also be the undoing of a society, community, ethnicity and religion. I believe that in the case of our country I see the signs of our common mythology seeding the possibility of disaster. For the dream captured, however imperfectly, in our Constitution, to culminate in a feudal system dominated by Corporatism, would seem to me tragic. My hope is that this piece will initiate some creative thought in the reader, just as Dave Parker’s comments did with me and I’m interested in how others view this concept of mythology recreating the Feudal System.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Mike Spindell 1, July 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Dredd,
Thanks for the link and yes I am aware of it and wondering how it will play out. If past history is a judge they’ll all get off with light penalties and go back to the same finagling.
=============================
Yes, they judge themselves a bit differently than they do the 99% …
The control / manipulation is getting increasingly like a corrupt King of feudal times who used torture and anything else to control the serfs.
Here is a link to a long time scientist who is a professor at Stanford, who said, when talking about toxoplasma gondii, which can affect some mammalian behavior, and fully control other mammalian behavior:
(Dr. Sapolsky). When trillions of dollars and control are involved, even if it is just to entertain themselves as you posted, they will try to pull anything.
Listen to and watch the entire video if you want, because it reveals the ability of the toxo they are interested in using for control purposes.
Gene H. 1, July 9, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Dredd,
You can appeal to authority all you like.
==============================
I call it citing authority.
Experts are ok.
There are authorities, and you most certainly are not one, otherwise you would recognize that.
You get the Dr. Nobel Price award once again (Sesame Street).
Oh you are definitely a bully psychologically, and so I am not going to beat on you other than to point it out so you can do something for yourself about it.
Other than fondle your “intellect” in public.
If you were an intellectual instead of a bully, you would be intrigued by new discoveries, rather than recoiling at them like they are a threat.
The toxoplasma gondii in you is changing your amygdala so that you still have that sexual attraction to your grandpa’s dictionary.
Grow a pair and get intellectual dood, drop the pseudo.
Listen to some scientists for a change, not the toxo.
The plutocracy seems to be getting paranoid and wants to know what we think about their economics, and other things:
(Daily Kos). That does not include requests from police according to the ACLU (ibid), and some folks in congress are, well, surprised:
(ibid). Yeah, everything is fine, move along folks, no propaganda is happening in the U.S.eh?
Jim,
When you answer queries with “read Von Mises” I am reminded of those who would exclaim: “What would Jesus do?” I see you don’t realize it but your devotion, or at least explanation of same is basically unproven assertions backed up by an all knowing authority figure. Now you might ask me where my proof of that notion comes from? I would answer: Directly from what you written thus far which are merely assertions and theories from your preferred authority on economic issues.
I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear on this but I see all economics as anther form of shamanism, with a similar track record. Beyond that your verbiage in describing your beliefs seems mildly hyperbolic. I see your unproven, yet boldly presented assertions, as indicative of pseudo-religious belief system enmired in tautological theory. In short an example of secular mythology.
Jim,
You can preach your religion to me all you like. Argumentum verbosum doesn’t work on me. The logical flaws in the Austrian School are fundamental and irreconcilable.
As to the economic calculation problem, I’m well aware of it and despite your assertion von Mises and Hayek “defeated” anyone, it has problems of its own. One, it bases its assumption that free markets are an efficient method for determining resource allocation. It’s a scientifically baseless assumption. One of Gödel’s assumed but unprovable points of data. Two, the assumption that market equilibrium can be better calculated by many calculators instead of one. If you know anything about Turing machines, you know this is nonsense. Third, the argument is overstated on matters of scale in that it is overstated in saying that socialism is impossible rather than inefficient. It also begs the question that purposefully inefficient systems may yield an optimal result and that perfectly efficient systems are possible and will always yield an optimal result simply because they are efficient. Lastly, von Mises had no idea that technological advances would make modelling complex systems easier so that his “impossible” is now rendered to “merely difficult”.
Also, Sweden and Norway would like to have a word with your boy about “defeating socialism”.
Von Mises was a sub-standard economist and a thinly veiled apologist for greed through political polemic disguised as “economics” he could not scientifically validate in any form. I didn’t come to that conclusion because I don’t know anything about him. I came to that conclusion because I know about him. You want to change my mind? No thanks. I prefer to make up my own.
Dredd,
You can appeal to authority all you like.
And I really don’t care whether you like I point out that you don’t understand the biology you read and regurgitate in support of your pet theory.
You think I’m a bully?
I think you are an intellectual poseur and completely, utterly full of shit.
If pointing that out makes me a bully in your ignorant eyes?
So be it.
Tony C.
You’re arguing against an imaginary adversary. I am not against all government regulation.
Take care,
— Jim.
Gene H.
That “alleged economist” saved Austria from the hyperinflation that plagued Germany and trained Hayek (who was socialist!). Hayek later won the Nobel. The Socialism Calculation Debate ( more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem ) was Keynes versus Hayek / Mises and Hayek defeated the adherents to socialism by proposing the knowledge problem developed by Mises. It has been shown again and again that the framework Mises developed is indeed accurate as socialist states (even with the benefit of prices from free counties) disintegrate into chaos – and it has been shown empirically each time socialism fails (although I am quite sure people will again argue about what the evidence says, because they’ve decided ahead of time, which is why the starting point is so crucial).
Schumpeter (“creative destruction”) was an Austrian. etc. etc. I must say that the level of knowledge regarding basic economics on this board, while deciding the veracity of the video, is distressing, to say the least. Subjective valuation is accepted by ALL economists! It is not a subject of “debate”.
I quote Mises talking about the ‘director’ … a socialist
“The director wants to build a house. Now, there are many methods that can be resorted to. Each of them offers, from the point of view of the director, certain advantages and disadvantages with regard to the utilization of the future building, and results in a different duration of the building’s serviceableness; each of them requires other expenditures of building materials and labor and absorbs other periods of production. Which method should the director choose? He cannot reduce to a common denominator the items of various materials and various kinds of labor to be expended. Therefore he cannot compare them. He cannot attach either to the waiting time (period of production) or to the duration of serviceableness a definite numerical expression. In short, he cannot, in comparing costs to be expended and gains to be earned, resort to any arithmetical operation. The plans of his architects enumerate a vast multiplicity of various items in kind; they refer to the physical and chemical qualities of various materials and to the physical productivity of various machines, tools, and procedures. But all their statements remain unrelated to each other. There is no means of establishing any connection between them.”
…
“The paradox of “planning” is that it cannot plan, because of the absence of economic calculation. What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark. There is no question of a rational choice of means for the best possible [p. 701] attainment of the ultimate ends sought. What is called conscious planning is precisely the elimination of conscious purposive action.”
See http://mises.org/humanaction/chap26sec1.asp
— Jim.
Mike S,
What economists like Robert Reich et alia are calling the greatest economic corruption scandal in history is slowly playing out.
I can’t get video to embed today, so here is a link to a page with the video where the lawyer for the relevant banks, and a research journalist reveal the details.
It involves trillions of dollars, and is definitely in the spirit of feudalism in the sense that the 1% overlords are once again sticking it to the 99% big time.
Dredd,
Thanks for the link and yes I am aware of it and wondering how it will play out. If past history is a judge they’ll all get off with light penalties and go back to the same finagling.
Typo: “provide” it.
@Jim: A market where there is traceable damage to a participant where it is agreed by convention that the buyer should not take the risk, is a crime.
And if the worker, because he is starving, signs off on any and all risks of the job? What then? As I said before, just like the software industry, if companies were not regulated and were allowed to demand such a waiver, they would do it routinely, and no company would gain any advantage by bucking that system and exposing themselves to lawsuits and liability. The only way to get workplace safety is to impose it by governmental regulation. Worker safety costs money and reduces productivity, there is no way around that. So providing a safe work environment increases costs, and unless everybody is required to do it, providing a safe working environment is a competitive disadvantage that will be avoided.
That is why we have OSHA, Jim. Before we had regulations on workplace safety, when the American market was free to provide safety if it would somehow provide an advantage, they did not. Instead they proved my thesis above; workplace safety did NOT provide better workers and workers did not value it enough to avoid unsafe workplaces.
It had to be regulated, the free market failed to provide it.
Jim,
And you saying something is nonsense without proving it is simply your opinion. I suggest that you have no idea what the scientific method entails or you’d know it is designed to limit error. Because a tool has limitations does not invalidate the utility of the tool, it merely provides guidelines to its proper use. However, that you hoisted yourself on to your own petard by saying the Austrian School doesn’t eschew science and then proceeded to say it just eschews the scientific method as applied to the analysis of humans is just really, really funny. The Sciences of Psychology, Sociology, Medicine and Anthropology are all having a good chuckle right about now. So are the other more scientific economists.
@Slart: By “results” in mathematics I mean theorems; and the point was that mathematics does produce proofs that are unequivocal. The distinction I was making is essentially the difference between the unequivocal results of a purely mathematical theorem and the fundamental statistical uncertainty in the results of most empirical sciences (with physics on the border between the two, I guess).
“Economics is the study of Human Action” begs the question that von Mises definition of action is accurate. Psychology is also a soft science, but when properly exercised, it is quite successful at making predictions and finding causal connections of human behaviors while utilizing the scientific method as opposed to some circular logic definition of human behavior that an alleged economist pulled out of thin air. You can make any argument work logically if you make up definitions to suit your desired outcome. That’s not only bad science, outcome determinism is bad logic as well. Proper definitions are as important to logic as valid premises are and making them up is the sign of weak argumentation.
Tony C.
A market where there is traceable damage to a participant where it is agreed by convention (which itself evolves, as does the market) that the buyer should not take the risk, is a crime. The theory of law in Austrian Economics is very strong. No one (here, so far) argues that a market is pure anarchy with no agreed institutional authority. There are some that do argue this, but of course that is so self-defeating it is pointless to debate with such a person.
— Jim.
As far as an example of a firm explanation of why the economy goes through booms and busts, read up on the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle…Jim
This is exactly why this economic ‘theory’ needs to be discarded. We should not have to subject our people or the world to boom and bust cycles. There are better ways to manage an economy – without resorting to command and control economies.
Yes, there may be a happy medium out there that supports sustainability instead of booms followed by busts. One would have to really think outside the box to discover this, for example, looking at the closed loop systems inherent in natural systems.
Rent seekers love market instability. it is how they make money! It does not always have to be so. It is something that has been artificially imposed on the nation.
Gene H.
Nonsense, of course. There are limits to the scientific method when using thinking participants, which themselves alter the outcome. I suggest you take those limits seriously, as the current “mythology” to which this thread refers, specifically relies on the mantle of “science” to promote it’s falsity.
— Jim.
Gene H,
I began by providing a video of a prominent professor of biology, neurobiology at Stanford.
No reading was required of watching a video, yet you said “you can’t read biology” like a typical 5th grade bully.
You are psychologically a bully, which according to the latest video link I provided above, is not from a gene but from your experience.
Mythology and propaganda are imposed very often by experience in the womb and later experience, which converts people into bullies.
Anyway, you do not understand either, that primitive activity is the first phase of all activity, including mythology.
Myths, like propaganda , start somewhere in an embryonic stage and progress from there into something different, yet there are at some level the core essences of what it will become.
Why that escapes you is a function of denial.
You are full of crap and want to smear it on everyone who sees through you, who are wannabees that will not confront you.
You never point out anything specific when I cite to an obvious primitive origin of something still here. Like Propaganda, an ancient practice by microorganisms, which some of them still practice.
The bullying infection in you has an ancient origin too.
Perhaps stress as a embryo, or toxoplasma gondii as an adult.
Slarti,
If he did, a little club soda will take it right out.
Slartibartfast,
Where you start in large measure is where you end up — agreed. But when we are talking axiomatic thinking in human action, there isn’t a variety of alternative “universes” which can exist – unless you want to derive one.
In other words, the basic challenge is to show the starting point of apriori economics false … that you do not spend your limited resources on that which you value most … I must say, there doesn’t seem any way to make that psychologically false. If you choose to support your children first, that is because you hold their survival and well-being at a higher level than your own. If you choose “liberty or death” then you have chosen a priority. Austrian economics emphasizes choice in action. I.e. the action is the choice (to say one chooses is not the same fact as the action, clearly). So the theory is quite “empirical” in one sense, but not at all in the modern scientific sense.
None of the scientific steps can be posited firstly because there is no experiment by which all variables can fall under the control of the experimenter. In addition, with science, there are strict limits on what can be gleaned by using thinking participants. There is no determined outcome, and thus no prediction, and thus no theory that can be got “empirically”. In addition, there are serious problems with empiricism as it takes a framework to interpret evidence.
Economics is the study of Human Action – choices, as that is the central issue in what, for whom, how, to produce.
I think empirical methods have been tried again and again and failed in economics. The relationships are not stable.
As far as an example of a firm explanation of why the economy goes through booms and busts, read up on the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, or any of the many other contributions to the theory of knowledge and history.