And indeed, we as a profession are making our voices heard in a way we never get the chance to do when the credit is flowing, businesses are investing and consumers buying what business wants to sell. Then, we make arguments based on data, otherwise known as “facts”, processed through regression analysis and logical rigour, which few humans read. (I know, I am an economics journal editor.) Now, on the other hand, we call for trillion dollar stimulus plans on the basis of little more than citing John Maynard Keynes – and politicians revere us. Citing Keynes gives us special licence to talk economics without using any. To paraphrase the lawyers' dictum, when the facts are on our side, we pound the facts; when theory is on our side, we pound theory; and when neither the facts nor theory are on our side, we pound Keynes – and to great effect.
的確，作爲一項職業，我們正讓自己的聲音被大家聽到，而在信貸通暢、企業樂於投資、消費者樂於購買的時期，我們從未有這樣的機會。然後，我們依據數據提出觀點，這些數據也被稱作「事實」，我們會運用迴歸分析和嚴格邏輯對其進行加工處理，幾乎沒有人看得懂計算過程。（我知道這點，因爲我是一名經濟學刊物主編。）另一方面，我們幾乎是單純以凱恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)的理論爲依據，呼籲上萬億美元的刺激計劃，而政界人士尊敬我們。引用凱恩斯理論給了我們無需引用其它理論即可討論經濟學的特權。套用律師的格言：當事實在我們這邊時，我們打事實牌；當理論在我們這邊時，我們打理論牌；而當事實和理論都不在我們這邊時，我們打凱恩斯牌——而且收到很好的效果。