PDA

View Full Version : Economics Just a reminder: Economics is not a science


Taco John
08-29-2011, 09:56 PM
With all this noise from Krugman about economics being a science, I thought it important to remind Krugman and his acolytes that economics is not a science, even though Krugman likes to play dress-up as a "scientist."

-----------------------------------------------------

Economics is not science, it's a technology of social science

Economics is an artifact of human imagination, and the agreement among certain humans who "play the games" together -- thereby it is a social technology. There is no underlying physical reality other than what is identified by the players to be components. Granted, the interactions within the system may be complex, and the economic properties are determined by what people study. Nevertheless, in the economic properties are determined by and limited only by the beliefs of the "players." To build economic models one must assume certain features, and the models become part of the generators of the results. Since they are not inherently tied to the physical and biological realities, they may fail arbitrarily as the physical and biological world view of humans change -- or as people believe the physical and biological world exists. Economics in large part reflects human belief systems. When physical and biological constraints become seriously constrained for humans, economics becomes irrelevant, the game ends.

http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/resource/onlinetext/Definitions/economicsNOTscience.htm

Jenson71
08-29-2011, 10:08 PM
It seems fairly scientific.

orange
08-29-2011, 10:12 PM
You mean the Invisible Hand is a myth?

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 10:35 PM
You mean the Invisible Hand is a myth?

No, that's what Krugman thinks.

Jenson71
08-29-2011, 10:39 PM
No, that's what Krugman thinks.

No, he doesn't.

patteeu
08-29-2011, 10:42 PM
You mean the Invisible Hand is a myth?

I don't think it means that. But I do think it means that "bubbles" are myths. Or maybe a better way to say it is that they only become real bubbles in hindsight after someone convinces enough people that there's a bubble.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 10:42 PM
Well then, that's what orange thinks. But lefties like Krugman generally do diss the IH.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 10:43 PM
Bubbles are real. We came out of one in 2007 ---> 2008.

patteeu
08-29-2011, 10:45 PM
Bubbles are real. We came out of one in 2007 ---> 2008.

Economics isn't a science. It's emotion and expectation.

orange
08-29-2011, 10:46 PM
Well then, that's what orange thinks.

No, it's not. I guess. Since I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I believe strongly in the efficiency of capitalism and free markets to produce and distribute goods. Just like Krugman does.

I posed the question precisely for that reason... I'm waiting for him to explain that the capitalist model is not scientific and can easily be replaced by whatever we feel like today (referring to OP) with equal or better results.

Chocolate Hog
08-29-2011, 10:47 PM
Patteeu is correct. Since theres no real value markets are based mostly upon confidence.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 10:51 PM
No, it's not. I guess. Since I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Just what you asked. Although, it seemed more rhetorical.

I believe strongly in the efficiency of capitalism and free markets to produce and distribute goods. Just like Krugman does.
That's a good for a laugh. He's a mixed-economy economist at minimum.

I posed the question precisely for that reason... I'm waiting for him to explain that the capitalist model is not scientific and can easily be replaced by whatever we feel like today (referring to OP) with equal or better results.

It doesn't have to be scientific. He using the term as in hard science. It's social science...specifically a branch of ethics. Human action is well just human action. Oh and they have hands but they can be seen. :p

HonestChieffan
08-29-2011, 10:51 PM
Krug is becoming more comedic than serious. Now he is on a Global Warming anti Republican bunny trail. Fewer and fewer people are taking him seriously with his incessant moaning about more stimulus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1

BucEyedPea
08-29-2011, 10:52 PM
Krug is becoming more comedic than serious. Now he is on a Global Warming anti Republican bunny trail. Fewer and fewer people are taking him seriously with his incessant moaning about more stimulus.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1

He needs to get laid. That's why he has so much stimulus on his mind. LMAO

orange
08-29-2011, 11:12 PM
http://a4.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Publication/48/89/d2/mzi.hjnaizjt.225x225-75.jpg

cdcox
08-30-2011, 01:11 AM
With all this noise from Krugman about economics being a science, I thought it important to remind Krugman and his acolytes that economics is not a science, even though Krugman likes to play dress-up as a "scientist."

-----------------------------------------------------

Economics is not science, it's a technology of social science

Economics is an artifact of human imagination, and the agreement among certain humans who "play the games" together -- thereby it is a social technology. There is no underlying physical reality other than what is identified by the players to be components. Granted, the interactions within the system may be complex, and the economic properties are determined by what people study. Nevertheless, in the economic properties are determined by and limited only by the beliefs of the "players." To build economic models one must assume certain features, and the models become part of the generators of the results. Since they are not inherently tied to the physical and biological realities, they may fail arbitrarily as the physical and biological world view of humans change -- or as people believe the physical and biological world exists. Economics in large part reflects human belief systems. When physical and biological constraints become seriously constrained for humans, economics becomes irrelevant, the game ends.

http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/resource/onlinetext/Definitions/economicsNOTscience.htm


LMAO You're so busted.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6312466&postcount=66

:titus:

Taco John
08-30-2011, 01:17 AM
http://a4.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Publication/48/89/d2/mzi.hjnaizjt.225x225-75.jpg

Thank you for bringing that up. That is a book that largely deals with how the ultimate foundation of "economic science" is human action, and thus the idea of economics as a unified science is a "chimera." Mises argues in this book that economics has to be examined as a social science that examines two branches: (1) human action; (2) history.

From the Preface:

This essay proposes to stress the fact that there is in the universe something for the description and analysis of which the natural sciences cannot contribute anything. There are events beyond the range of those events that the procedures of the natural sciences are fit to observe and to describe. There is human action.

You can read the entire essay here:
http://mises.org/books/ufofes/

Taco John
08-30-2011, 01:26 AM
LMAO You're so busted.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6312466&postcount=66

:titus:

Not at all. That fits in perfectly with what I posted in the original, with the exception that I never previously considered economics as a technology of the social science, but as the social science itself. The point is, Krugman is trying to pass off economics as a hard science, which it's not. It's a soft science. The hardness and softness of it are reliant on the confidence levels of the individual actors - which is why models like Obama's 8% unemployment rate if we do the stimulus end up falling flat.

cdcox
08-30-2011, 01:34 AM
Not at all. That fits in perfectly with what I posted in the original, with the exception that I never previously considered economics as a technology of the social science, but as the social science itself. The point is, Krugman is trying to pass off economics as a hard science, which it's not. It's a soft science. The hardness and softness of it are reliant on the confidence levels of the individual actors - which is why models like Obama's 8% unemployment rate if we do the stimulus end up falling flat.

Physics is hard science.

You said "Economics is physics. Physics is economics."

There is no Taco John Watusi around this one. Words have meaning.

Taco John
08-30-2011, 01:45 AM
Physics is hard science.

You said "Economics is physics. Physics is economics."

There is no Taco John Watusi around this one. Words have meaning.

Ok, fine. I stand corrected.

JohnnyV13
08-30-2011, 02:22 AM
It's social science...specifically a branch of ethics. Human action is well just human action. Oh and they have hands but they can be seen. :p

Ummmm...BEP....thats an EXTREMELY statist thing to say.

Who gets to impose their view of "Ethics"? I presume its your incorruptable libertarian/Austrians anarcho-capitalists whose ideas will be spontaneously adopted due to their intellectual brilliance...in a new moral orthodoxy that will push everything else aside much like the media does with liberal orthodoxy today.

This belief is EXACTLY why rothbard, mises, and lew rockwell are living in Rainbow and Unicorn la la land. You like to accuse mainstream politicians and economists for their utopian visions, yet swallow the idea that Jeffrey Dahmer would submit to a privitized justice system in a anarcho-capitalist fantasy world.

Economics, much like biological natural selection, is inherently AMORAL. In fact, you have it completely wrong. Economics is a subset of ECOLOGY, specifically HUMAN ecology. Economics is how mankind wins its biological needs from its environment.

The reason why economics CANNOT be a subset of ethics, is that economic behavior is composed of multiple individuals...hence there will be far more than one "ethical" code at play. Economic behavior will an amalgam of choices. A moral code is something that only an individual can adhere to. In fact, trying to extract some kind of moral code from the economic behavior of a group, will lead to a comically self-contradictory morass of rules and principles.

Do you really think that someone is contemplating moral implications when choosing between a 30 year mortgage vs. a 15 year mortgage? What, exactly, ethical issues are going to come into play? Fact is, that's going to be decision purely based on which payment schedule fits your self-interest. Only in some unusual circumstance would most people consider ethical issues (such as one mortgage lender has cheated in some of its securities dealings, making one unwilling to benefit from ill-gotten gains). And, even then, economic interests won't compel that decision; it will be individual choice whether you want to even account for ethical considerations.

Ethical considerations CAN come into play in economic decisions, but mostly they are an outside influence. Lets take a common retail example. You're in grocery store, you see a milky way bar for 1.00 and a pack of starburst on sale for 75 cents. You commonly would make your decision based on health impacts, cost, or taste. How is any of these an "ethical" question?

Now, ethics CAN come into play if you really would prefer the milky way bar, but only have 88 cents. You could either steal the milky way, use the counterfiet dollar bill in your pocket, buy the starburst pack that you can afford, or do something to earn the extra 25 cents you need to buy the milky way. But, the ethical considerations (steal or use counterfeit) are clearly separate from the economic pressures (buy starburst or earn more money).

orange
08-30-2011, 03:03 AM
Thank you for bringing that up. That is a book that largely deals with how the ultimate foundation of "economic science" is human action, and thus the idea of economics as a unified science is a "chimera." Mises argues in this book that economics has to be examined as a social science that examines two branches: (1) human action; (2) history.

From the Preface:

This essay proposes to stress the fact that there is in the universe something for the description and analysis of which the natural sciences cannot contribute anything. There are events beyond the range of those events that the procedures of the natural sciences are fit to observe and to describe. There is human action.

You can read the entire essay here:
http://mises.org/books/ufofes/

You certainly can ... and SHOULD. Since you obviously haven't.


A new epistemology of rationalism aimed at the refutation of this integral empiricism. Leibniz added to the doctrine that nothing is in the intellect that has not previously been in the senses the proviso: except the intellect itself. Kant, awakened by Hume from his "dogmatic slumbers," put the rationalistic doctrine upon a new basis. Experience, he taught, provides only the raw material out of which the mind forms what is called knowledge. All knowledge is conditioned by the categories that precede any data of experience both in time and in logic. The categories are a priori; they are the mental equipment of the individual that enables him to think and—we may add—to act. As all reasoning presupposes the a priori categories, it is vain to embark upon attempts to prove or to disprove them...

The empiricist reaction against apriorism centers around a misleading interpretation of the non-Euclidean geometries, the nineteenth century's most important contribution to mathematics... There is no such thing as first principles a priori given to the human mind.[2] Such is the doctrine of the famous "Vienna Circle" and of other contemporary schools of radical empiricism and logical positivism.

In order to examine this philosophy, let us refer to the conflict between the Euclidian geometry and the non-Euclidian geometries which gave rise to these controversies. It is an undeniable fact that technological planning guided by the Euclidian system resulted in effects that had to be expected according to the inferences derived from this system. The buildings do not collapse, and the machines run in the expected way. The practical engineer cannot deny that this geometry aided him in his endeavors to divert events of the real external world from the course they would have taken in the absence of his intervention and to direct them towards goals that he wanted to attain. He must conclude that this geometry, although based upon definite a priori ideas, affirms something about reality and nature. The pragmatist cannot help admitting that Euclidian geometry works in the same way in which all a posteriori knowledge provided by the experimental natural sciences works. ... This means that the axioms from which Euclid starts tell us something about the external world that to our mind must appear no less "true" than the teachings of the experimental natural sciences....

What the panempiricists fail to explain is how a deductive theory, starting from allegedly arbitrary postulates, renders valuable, even indispensable, services in the endeavors to describe correctly the conditions of the external world and to deal with them successfully.

The fortunate empirical fact to which Reichenbach refers is the fact that the human mind has the ability to develop theories which, although a priori, are instrumental in the endeavors to construct any a posteriori system of knowledge. Although logic, mathematics, and praxeology are not derived from experience, they are not arbitrarily made, but imposed upon us by the world in which we live and act and which we want to study. They are not empty, not meaningless, and not merely verbal. They are—for man—the most general laws of the universe, and without them no knowledge would be accessible to man.[4]

The a priori categories are the endowment that enables man to attain all that is specifically human and distinguishes him from all other beings. Their analysis is analysis of the human condition, the role man plays in the universe. They are the force that enables man to create and to produce all that is called human civilization.

...

However we may think about this problem, one thing is certain. Since the a priori categories emanating from the logical structure of the human mind have enabled man to develop theories the practical application of which has aided him in his endeavors to hold his own in the struggle for survival and to attain various ends that he wanted to attain, these categories provide some information about the reality of the universe. They are not merely arbitrary assumptions without any informative value, not mere conventions that could as well be replaced by some other conventions. They are the necessary mental tool to arrange sense data in a systematic way, to transform them into facts of experience, then these facts into bricks to build theories, and finally the theories into technics to attain ends aimed at.


In other words, human actions are based upon a priori principles which can be deduced and described. By economists, for example. The whole book is an argument AGAINST your OP (which was written by a biologist, by the way, not an economist).

The aim of all brands of positivism is to silence the sciences of human action. For the sake of argument we may abstain from analyzing positivism's contributions to the epistemology of the natural sciences both with regard to their originality and to their soundness. Neither do we have to dwell too long upon the motives that incited the positivist authors' passionate attacks upon the "unscientific procedure" of economics and history. They are advocating definite political, economic and cultural reforms which, as they believe, will bring about the salvation of mankind and the establishment of eternal bliss. As they cannot refute the devastating criticism that their fantastic plans met on the part of the economists, they want to suppress the "dismal science."

The question whether the term "science" ought to be applied only to the natural sciences or also to praxeology and to history is merely linguistic and its solution differs with the usages of various languages. In English the term science for many people refers only to the natural sciences.[2] In German it is customary to speak of a Geschichtswissenschaft and to call various branches of history Wissenschaft, such as Literaturwissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft, Kunstwissenschaft, Kriegswissenschaft. One can dismiss the problem as merely verbal, an inane quibbling about words.

...

There is no way either to confirm or to reject by discursive reasoning the metaphysical ideas that are at the bottom of the blatantly advertised program of "Unified Science" as expounded in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, the holy writ of logical positivism, panphysicalism, and intolerant empiricism.

So much for Unified Science (if it's too much for you to comprehend - Mises is agin' it) - and your OP.

Any minute now you're going to tell me Locke was against paying taxes.

orange
08-30-2011, 03:14 AM
Ok, fine. I stand corrected.

Amazing. The far right decides to attack the science of economics as part of their general plank of know-nothingism and you go along to the extent of repudiating what you've claimed to believe and the writers you claim to hold to. :shake:

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 04:55 AM
http://a4.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Publication/48/89/d2/mzi.hjnaizjt.225x225-75.jpg

Just a reminder—as in social science.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 04:58 AM
Ummmm...BEP....thats an EXTREMELY statist thing to say.
There's nothing at all statist in what I said. Where did I put govt into anything there? Nowhere.

BTW ethics is not morality. Morality is not ethics. I know many lump them together. They are not exactly the same on closer view. Historically economics has been a branch of ethics as it is about humans making choices.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 05:06 AM
Amazing. The far right decides to attack the science of economics as part of their general plank of know-nothingism and you go along to the extent of repudiating what you've claimed to believe and the writers you claim to hold to. :shake:

Far right? It's just classical liberalism. Not everyone on the "far" right is an Austrian. Plenty of them are in Hamilton's Neo Mercantilist camp. But this post of yours is nothing but ad hominem. You've lost the argument before you've even begun.

The reason Austrians get into economics not being a hard science is because the Keynesians make economics mathematical and empirical. Reducing people making choices to molecules and formulas is inadequate and does not work. That doesn't mean there aren't any natural laws.

However, you can never predict exactly what one person will do compared to another all the time. Say 5 men were handed $30,000 each. Each will choose to spend it differently because each will value different things. One may buy a fancy car, another might drink it all and wine & dine women, and another may take a trip or another will split it up for several things and invest some. You can't predict people's choices from one to the other all the time. You can some like knowing they'll all buy food but what kind comes into play.

The entire premise and construct of Austrianism is built up differently than the pseudo-science of Keynes. So when you argue the two you can't take parts out of Keynes and fit them into the Austrian framework. It's like taking the bumper off a Volkswagon and putting it on a Cadillac. This is why Keynesians never really get a full conceptual understanding of the Austrian school. They try to play mix and match and use words differently when the framework is not the same. The way Johnny V tried to do earlier.

Amnorix
08-30-2011, 07:24 AM
IMHO economics is a social science, not a hard science.

Jenson71
08-30-2011, 07:53 AM
IMHO economics is a social science, not a hard science.

No! It's physics!

Man, Taco, what lewrockwell piece did you pull that outta?

banyon
08-30-2011, 08:02 AM
Wow, this thread turned out to be a giant ball of fail.

Who was out there claiming economics wasn't a social science?

|Zach|
08-30-2011, 08:08 AM
Ed Harken: A lot of you have been hearing the talking heads complaining about the lack of a good economy on TV.

Champ Kind: What in the hell's an economy?

Ron Burgundy: Well, I could be wrong, but I believe an economy is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

Ed Harken: Ron, I would be surprised if the talking heads were concerned about the lack of an old, old wooden ship, but nice try.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rdy0UBxRWlA/TbdigGQYCGI/AAAAAAAAAIc/q52exTzkfks/s1600/Anchorman.jpg

HonestChieffan
08-30-2011, 08:54 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J8SBU3fegkA/Tlu92lJ6mfI/AAAAAAABI10/PM7kFldGFRM/s400/keynesians-fail.jpg

JohnnyV13
08-30-2011, 10:12 AM
Definition of ETHIC (from websters)

1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics>

c : a guiding philosophy
d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning


So, BEP, of all the alternative uses of "ethic" only ONE strips out moral choices (a guiding philosophy) in the way you say Austrians are using the word.

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to improperly accuse Austrians because I'm evil.

orange
08-30-2011, 10:27 AM
Just a reminder—as in social science.

Just a reminder:

The question whether the term "science" ought to be applied only to the natural sciences or also to praxeology and to history is merely linguistic and its solution differs with the usages of various languages. In English the term science for many people refers only to the natural sciences.[2] In German it is customary to speak of a Geschichtswissenschaft and to call various branches of history Wissenschaft, such as Literaturwissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft, Kunstwissenschaft, Kriegswissenschaft. One can dismiss the problem as merely verbal, an inane quibbling about words.

JohnnyV13
08-30-2011, 10:57 AM
I am, however, entirely correct about Mises, Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell all being in Rainbow and Unicorn la la land, and I can show it in a way that doesn't depend on the definition of "ethics".

The key problem is that Mises sees "Human Action" as the root of economics, failing to see its true foundation in Ecology.

So, how does this failure create a problem?

Lets go right to the heart of Austrian theory, the hatred for fiat money.

One of the primary arguments against fiat money is that it can be used to support military imperialism. You see this argument particularly in Rothbard and Ron Paul. Fiat money is the mechanism the goverment uses to rapidly expand military build ups. If we want to stop the welfare/warfare state, we need to stop fiat money.

So, lets do something Austrians should love: a thought experiment.

Lets take two hypothetical groups of people. We can call one, I don['t know....GER and FRA. FRA reads all about Rothbard, Mises, and Lew Rockwell (and Hoppe and Hayak et. al), and says HEY we want to drink wine and party and have lots of sex, and the best way to do that is have more stuff.

So, lets get rid of the state, and get rid of this fiat money...and it will be wine, women and song for everyone!

Lets presume Austrian theory is correct and the people living in what used to be called FRA now enjoy the most vibrant economy in the world.

GER, who has kept its state organization and its fiat money, is now so relatively impoverished by its poor economics that it has destabilized the state. Driven by poverty, a new leader rises. Lets call him (purely randomly, of course) A.H.

A.H. decides to put everyone back to work by building up his military, using inflated fiat money. Now, according to Austrian theory, FRA can't match GER's military build up, because it has to use sound money financing, which takes far longer to accumulate (especially when there is no central government, hence you have to get a lot of entities to agree).

Now, A.H. tells everyone he's really peace loving at heart, that the nuclear technology he's developing has nothing to do with weaponry, but GER's need for power generation (even though GER has the 2nd most proven oil reserves in the world). He takes lots of photos of peace wreaths laid over tanks and bombs. And the missile defense system he's developing is rooted in GER's desire for safe prosperity.

Now, many many people in what used to be called FRA realize that A.H. is full of crap. But, enough of the wine, women and song people take him at his word that they complacently keep the party going. And, even if they recognized the danger, they couldn't build up their army nearly as fast as GER.

Seven years later GER invades FRA. FRA lasts...i don't know...about 40 days?

Now, as we all know, overall economic output of FRA and GER goes down because of all the many windows that get broken during the invasion. But, do the people of GER really care? They have their stuff, most of the stuff of FRA, and have pretty much enslaved the people of FRA.

Basically, once a competing entity uses fiat money, the military capability of rapid build up forces everyone else to have it in order to survive. This happens because economics is, at its core, Darwinian. And, social structures MUST promote Darwinian interests or else that society will not survive.

To think that we can get everyone else to adopt sound money and anarcho-capitalism because they will have more stuff, is a la la land fantasy. To effectively get the whole world to adopt this philosophy (and it would require most every power to adopt this philosophy), would need some kind of intellectual fascism so pervasive, that its barely distinguishable from a totalitarian state. That's why I said your statement was "statist".

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 11:16 AM
Definition of ETHIC (from websters)

1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics>

c : a guiding philosophy
d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning


So, BEP, of all the alternative uses of "ethic" only ONE strips out moral choices (a guiding philosophy) in the way you say Austrians are using the word.

Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to improperly accuse Austrians because I'm evil.

Apparently you didn't read what I actually posted. I will say it differently: You will find these lumped together but it's not true. I am using ethics unlike what you have found here. BTW rightness would enter in but not the way you think. Right and wrong can vary from place to place and it still involves choices. Dictionaries are inadequate here. I would never think a simple dictionary definition would deal with what I was saying. Morals have more to do with following codes ( that have to do with right and wrong) whereas ethics involves reasoning. Moral codes are not necessarily always ethical but can become outdated. Like do not eat pork. There's no reason being used there, you just follow it as part of a belief set.

Still I said nothing about the state particularly regarding the state coercing anyone to do something when making economic choices.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 11:18 AM
Just a reminder:

The question whether the term "science" ought to be applied only to the natural sciences or also to praxeology and to history is merely linguistic and its solution differs with the usages of various languages. In English the term science for many people refers only to the natural sciences.[2] In German it is customary to speak of a Geschichtswissenschaft and to call various branches of history Wissenschaft, such as Literaturwissenschaft, Sprachwissenschaft, Kunstwissenschaft, Kriegswissenschaft. One can dismiss the problem as merely verbal, an inane quibbling about words.
Just a reminder: that's an opinion.

This post is also a strawman because you left out the adjective I used in my claim which was the word "hard" as in hard science.
Economics is a social science. You are in the Keynesian mind frame. It doesn't work for refuting this claim.

orange
08-30-2011, 11:27 AM
Just a reminder: that's an opinion.

This post is also a strawman because you left out the adjective I used in my claim which was the word "hard" as in hard science.
Economics is a social science. You are in the Keynesian Austrian mind frame. It doesn't work for refuting this claim.

ROFL

That's MISES I quoted. Go back and read my humongous post one page back. That's ALL MISES.

"Although logic, mathematics, and praxeology are not derived from experience, they are not arbitrarily made, but imposed upon us by the world in which we live and act and which we want to study. They are not empty, not meaningless, and not merely verbal. They are—for man—the most general laws of the universe, and without them no knowledge would be accessible to man." - Ludwig Von Mises

"The aim of all brands of positivism is to silence the sciences of human action. For the sake of argument we may abstain from analyzing positivism's contributions to the epistemology of the natural sciences both with regard to their originality and to their soundness. Neither do we have to dwell too long upon the motives that incited the positivist authors' passionate attacks upon the "unscientific procedure" of economics and history. They are advocating definite political, economic and cultural reforms which, as they believe, will bring about the salvation of mankind and the establishment of eternal bliss. As they cannot refute the devastating criticism that their fantastic plans met on the part of the economists, they want to suppress the "dismal science."" - Ludwig Von Mises

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/7/73/Roflcopter.gif

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 11:33 AM
ROFL

That's MISES I quoted. Go back and read my humongous post one page back. That's ALL MISES.
I didn't even read the non-bolded part or your earlier—just the bold there.
I took that part in context to the definitions of "ethics" argument I was having not your paragraph as if I was just quibbling about words. I did not get that idea strictly from Mises anyway.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 11:37 AM
I am, however, entirely correct about Mises, Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell all being in Rainbow and Unicorn la la land, and I can show it in a way that doesn't depend on the definition of "ethics".
In your opinion and it is purely opinion. I love how the left disagrees by go after the sanity of those they disagree with. It's constant. Just like the Soviets at one time. Off to the Gulag! It's a good way to find out who the real Unicorn seekers are. Those promising the good life via govt.

orange
08-30-2011, 11:39 AM
I didn't even read the non bolded part—just the bold.


I'll give you the short form. He argues that Economics and other sciences of human action (i.e. social sciences) are legitimate sciences. They seek to ascertain fundamental a priori truths that exist objectively and independently. And he totally rejects the very subjective positivism embodied in the OP.

p.s. He also claims elsewhere (in a passage I didn't quote) that mathematics are essential to economics. I don't know where you get the idea the Austrians reject the use of mathematics - they just believe the Keynesian models are erroneous, not wrong-headed.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 11:42 AM
I'll give you the short form.
I appreciate that because when you rely on so many LONG cut and pastes I don't bother.

He argues that Economics and other sciences of human action (i.e. social sciences) are legitimate sciences.
I never even saw this as my argument anyway—just not a hard science—which is what I was posting for myself.

They seek to ascertain fundamental a priori truths that exist objectively and independently. And he totally rejects the very subjective positivism embodied in the OP.

Eh, he does state that value is subjective in his economic work. But, again, I was stating my own position.

orange
08-30-2011, 11:49 AM
In your opinion and it is purely opinion. I love how the left disagrees by go after the sanity of those they disagree with. It's constant. Just like the Soviets at one time. Off to the Gulag! It's a good way to find out who the real Unicorn seekers are. Those promising the good life via govt.


"The aim of all brands of positivism is to silence the sciences of human action. For the sake of argument we may abstain from analyzing positivism's contributions to the epistemology of the natural sciences both with regard to their originality and to their soundness. Neither do we have to dwell too long upon the motives that incited the positivist authors' passionate attacks upon the "unscientific procedure" of economics and history. They are advocating definite political, economic and cultural reforms which, as they believe, will bring about the salvation of mankind and the establishment of eternal bliss. As they cannot refute the devastating criticism that their fantastic plans met on the part of the economists, they want to suppress the "dismal science.""

You know who these Positivists he's talking about are, don't you? The ones who are trying to suppress the "dismal science?"

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/7/73/Roflcopter.gif

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 12:05 PM
You know who these Positivists he's talking about are, don't you? The ones who are trying to suppress the "dismal science?"


Looks to me like it's the Keynesians who are in the positivist camp who are promising utopia where economies can be stimulated by govts to prevent the pain of correction of this actions. However, he is not calling or implying that they are "crazy" or a "loon" as the some positivists have done such as JohnnyV with his "la la" comments. I might add including guffaws such a smiley's to mock and other graphics. You guys are just using ad hominem when you do that. That's what I was referring to so your not really comparing apples to oranges here. You tend to move things by a few shades into another category and then act like it's the same thing. It's not.

JohnnyV13
08-30-2011, 12:12 PM
In your opinion and it is purely opinion. I love how the left disagrees by go after the sanity of those they disagree with. It's constant. Just like the Soviets at one time. Off to the Gulag! It's a good way to find out who the real Unicorn seekers are. Those promising the good life via govt.

Spare me. If that "is just opinion" then the entirety of Austrian economics is "Just opinion".

In that post I used approved austrian methods, a priori reasoning and thought experiments.

I also used accepted austrian monetary theory to show that Rothbard, Rockwell and Mises wouid lead an austrian economic paradise into getting conquered by its neighbors.

But hey, I'm sure you didn't read it, or even bother to address its arguments, because well...you don't agree with the final opinion. Since that opinion is "wrong" according to the Rockwellian faith, then obviously, the reasoning must be wrong.

orange
08-30-2011, 12:15 PM
Looks to me like it's the Keynesians

Then you're blind.

Neither do we have to dwell too long upon the motives that incited the positivist authors' passionate attacks upon the "unscientific procedure" of economics and history.

I guarantee you no Keynesian has ever written a "passionate attack upon the "unscientific procedure" of economics." That's the whole point of this entire discussion - Keynesians a la Krugman DEFEND the science of economics against spurious attacks.

No, the positivists Mises lambasts are the SOVIETS. You come along adopting a SOVIET line, that economics are not scientific (excuse me, "hard") and then claim that the defenders of the science of economics are like the SOVIETS. I can't help myself, I've just got to take one more flight:

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/7/73/Roflcopter.gif

orange
08-30-2011, 12:17 PM
However, he is not calling or implying that they are "crazy" or a "loon"

By the way, YES HE IS.

They are advocating definite political, economic and cultural reforms which, as they believe, will bring about the salvation of mankind and the establishment of eternal bliss. As they cannot refute the devastating criticism that their fantastic plans met on the part of the economists.

Garcia Bronco
08-30-2011, 12:18 PM
It seems fairly scientific.

that's not the same thing. You can approach it with the scientific method from an archival reseach perspective or a predictive perspective. But that does make it a science. There are only 3...technically 4 sciences

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
-Psychology

Psycholgy does not have hard rules like the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics

Another example...people will tell you the study of Geology is a science. It's not. What you are actually studying is physics and chemistry.

Economics has many aspects to it...but really it's the study of behavior ..aka Psychology

People will tell you Math is science. It's not in this case. It's a tool to quantify observations to compare to other observations

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 01:40 PM
By the way, YES HE IS.

They are advocating definite political, economic and cultural reforms which, as they believe, will bring about the salvation of mankind and the establishment of eternal bliss. As they cannot refute the devastating criticism that their fantastic plans met on the part of the economists.

Nope. Not the same thing. He's addressing their ideas not their person as being nuts relying on fantasies. Remember logic is seeing differences, similarities and identities. You are seeing this as identical. It is not.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2011, 01:52 PM
that's not the same thing. You can approach it with the scientific method from an archival reseach perspective or a predictive perspective. But that does make it a science. There are only 3...technically 4 sciences

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
-Psychology

Psycholgy does not have hard rules like the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics

Another example...people will tell you the study of Geology is a science. It's not. What you are actually studying is physics and chemistry.

Economics has many aspects to it...but really it's the study of behavior ..aka Psychology

People will tell you Math is science. It's not in this case. It's a tool to quantify observations to compare to other observations
:thumb: Good post!

JohnnyV13
08-30-2011, 02:03 PM
Nope. Not the same thing. He's addressing their ideas not their person as being nuts relying on fantasies. Remember logic is seeing differences, similarities and identities. You are seeing this as identical. It is not.

Its not an ad hominem if you can back it up with argument aimed at the ideas, which is exactly what I have done.

If I said Rothbard, Rockwell and Mises have sex with small rodents; then never addressed their ideas, sure that's an ad hominem.

If you say Rothbard, Rockwell and Mises are in la la land, then specifically reference their theories, and show how those theories can reasonably (with colorable logic, it doesn't necessarily have to be right) be said to be from la la land, then its no ad hominem.

The reason an ad hominem is a logical fallacy is because it fails to address the ideas and only attacks the person. While I did hurl, what was on its face, an attack against their persons, I then addressed their theories. So, while I had something resembling the form of an ad hominem, it lacks the essense.

Of course, recognizing that makes it difficult to jam the black hat on my head, so would be intellectually inconvenient. It would prevent you from refuting me by simply claiming the moral high ground instead of actually confronting my darwinian refutation to Misean theory.

Calcountry
08-30-2011, 05:58 PM
Economics isn't a science. It's emotion and expectation.Economics = Math;Econometrics;Statistics;modeling;linear algebra;Calculus.

It is extremely scientific. Anyone who thinks otherwise, quite frankly, don't know their theory from a hole in the ground.

Calcountry
08-30-2011, 06:11 PM
that's not the same thing. You can approach it with the scientific method from an archival reseach perspective or a predictive perspective. But that does make it a science. There are only 3...technically 4 sciences

Physics
Chemistry
Biology
-Psychology

Psycholgy does not have hard rules like the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics

Another example...people will tell you the study of Geology is a science. It's not. What you are actually studying is physics and chemistry.

Economics has many aspects to it...but really it's the study of behavior ..aka Psychology

People will tell you Math is science. It's not in this case. It's a tool to quantify observations to compare to other observationsOh really?

"The Dismal Science"= Economics. Linear independence, coefficients, rational and irrational assumptions, budgetary constraints, spillover effects, functional relationships. The Supply Curve is a mathematical function. Elasticity of Demand is the derivative of the Demand curve. Oh no, no, it's philosophical dude.

patteeu
08-30-2011, 07:17 PM
Economics = Math;Econometrics;Statistics;modeling;linear algebra;Calculus.

It is extremely scientific. Anyone who thinks otherwise, quite frankly, don't know their theory from a hole in the ground.

I know that economists like to believe this. I'd gladly defer to you on economic theory, but the fact that you use math in the study of economics doesn't mean economics is math. Certainly not in the same sense that gravity is math. Gravity doesn't depend on human behavior following an assumed sense of human nature.

NaptownChief
08-30-2011, 07:31 PM
For anyone to truly understand and know "economics" they need a few years as a small business owner. Theory and reality don't always match up. I've got a degree in corporate finance and also economics and I can assure you that reality can be a good bit different than the theory.

Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of politicians have zero background in economics(the theory) or business owner(the reality) and as a result you have the mess we have.

Taco John
08-30-2011, 07:32 PM
Economics = Math;Econometrics;Statistics;modeling;linear algebra;Calculus.

It is extremely scientific. Anyone who thinks otherwise, quite frankly, don't know their theory from a hole in the ground.


This is "SmartWater":

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21G87Y9Y6DL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

It costs $26.44 for a case at Amazon.

I buy Arrowhead for $5.50 for a case at Costco.

What's the scientific formula that will get me to buy my water for $26.44 a case?

FD
08-30-2011, 07:33 PM
I know that economists like to believe this. I'd gladly defer to you on economic theory, but the fact that you use math in the study of economics doesn't mean economics is math. Certainly not in the same sense that gravity is math. Gravity doesn't depend on human behavior following an assumed sense of human nature.

You're confusing what the field studies with the field itself. Physicists study the physical world, which does not depend on human behavior like economics does, but they use the same basic scientific methods. Both form mathematical models of the phenomena of interest and test these models using data and experiments.

Studying economic phenomena is difficult because of the complex way humans behave and because controlled experiments are difficult to do, but economists still use math and data in just the same way as physical scientists. Does the fact that its difficult and the subject matter is messy mean that economics is not a "science"? I dont know, as that is a question of semantics, but its a lot more than just "emotion and expectation."

orange
08-30-2011, 07:59 PM
I note above that "Biology" is an acceptable science. If you study the behavior of a group of monkeys, recording how many react in which ways to given situations, that's science I guess?

What if the monkeys have no tails?

p.s.

Economics = Math;Econometrics;Statistics;modeling;linear algebra;Calculus.

It is extremely scientific. Anyone who thinks otherwise, quite frankly, don't know their theory from a hole in the ground.

Oh really?

"The Dismal Science"= Economics. Linear independence, coefficients, rational and irrational assumptions, budgetary constraints, spillover effects, functional relationships. The Supply Curve is a mathematical function. Elasticity of Demand is the derivative of the Demand curve. Oh no, no, it's philosophical dude.

Dude!

JohnnyV13
08-30-2011, 10:07 PM
I note above that "Biology" is an acceptable science. If you study the behavior of a group of monkeys, recording how many react in which ways to given situations, that's science I guess?

What if the monkeys have no tails?

p.s.
Dude!


Didn't I say that economics was really a subset of Ecology?

Garcia Bronco
08-31-2011, 10:45 AM
Oh really?

"The Dismal Science"= Economics. Linear independence, coefficients, rational and irrational assumptions, budgetary constraints, spillover effects, functional relationships. The Supply Curve is a mathematical function. Elasticity of Demand is the derivative of the Demand curve. Oh no, no, it's philosophical dude.

Math isn't a science and I have a minor in it.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:09 AM
You're confusing what the field studies with the field itself. Physicists study the physical world, which does not depend on human behavior like economics does, but they use the same basic scientific methods. Both form mathematical models of the phenomena of interest and test these models using data and experiments.

Studying economic phenomena is difficult because of the complex way humans behave and because controlled experiments are difficult to do, but economists still use math and data in just the same way as physical scientists. Does the fact that its difficult and the subject matter is messy mean that economics is not a "science"? I dont know, as that is a question of semantics, but its a lot more than just "emotion and expectation."
The thing is economics is not as difficult as the so called "experts" make it out to be. It's actually much easier to understand. The complexity is only due to millions of people interacting with one another making choices and decisions to better their lot in life in as rational manner as they can ( ethics) a million times over of the same principles. It's because the macro economist thinks he can try to capture all this as an aggregate that makes it complicated PLUS his attempt to manage all that. Hubris.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:12 AM
By the way, YES HE IS.

They are advocating definite political, economic and cultural reforms which, as they believe, will bring about the salvation of mankind and the establishment of eternal bliss. As they cannot refute the devastating criticism that their fantastic plans met on the part of the economists.

He is not directing it to the person he is talking about their ideas, actions and motivations. You deflect off onto something else to make it what it's not.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:16 AM
Oh really?

"The Dismal Science"= Economics. Linear independence, coefficients, rational and irrational assumptions, budgetary constraints, spillover effects, functional relationships. The Supply Curve is a mathematical function. Elasticity of Demand is the derivative of the Demand curve. Oh no, no, it's philosophical dude.

Math is just a tool used by many professions including economists who have made the subject overly mathematical. Underlying economics is human action including the choices they make. What sort of consequences count as good consequences in their choices? You CANNOT ever separate it from that and that tends to get lost in how the mainstream teaches it. For gosh sakes, just look at the root origins of the word. It comes from the mistress of the household managing her home.

Just discussing what economics "is" happens to be engaging in philosophy. Philosophy address what is "X".

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 11:43 AM
Its not an ad hominem if you can back it up with argument aimed at the ideas, which is exactly what I have done.
It's irrelevant. It's only fair to say you didn't ONLY use it.

BTW regarding your definition of ethics being used: I said it was a BRANCH of ethics.



Ethics:

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to help us understand which ways of life are worth following and which actions are right or wrong. Ethics addresses questions of right and wrong using reason rather than faith or tradition.

A sub-set is Applied Ethics.
http://professional--ethics.blogspot.com/2009/12/branches-of-ethics.html

Garcia Bronco
08-31-2011, 12:14 PM
Math is just a tool used by many professions including economists who have made the subject overly mathematical. Underlying economics is human action including the choices they make. What sort of consequences count as good consequences in their choices? You CANNOT ever separate it from that and that tends to get lost in how the mainstream teaches it. For gosh sakes, just look at the root origins of the word. It comes from the mistress of the household managing her home.

Just discussing what economics "is" happens to be engaging in philosophy. Philosophy address what is "X".

:wayne:

BucEyedPea
08-31-2011, 12:41 PM
:wayne:

Awesome. You may rise now! :D

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:25 PM
This is "SmartWater":

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21G87Y9Y6DL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

It costs $26.44 for a case at Amazon.

I buy Arrowhead for $5.50 for a case at Costco.

What's the scientific formula that will get me to buy my water for $26.44 a case? A/C=26.44/5.5

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:27 PM
You're confusing what the field studies with the field itself. Physicists study the physical world, which does not depend on human behavior like economics does, but they use the same basic scientific methods. Both form mathematical models of the phenomena of interest and test these models using data and experiments.

Studying economic phenomena is difficult because of the complex way humans behave and because controlled experiments are difficult to do, but economists still use math and data in just the same way as physical scientists. Does the fact that its difficult and the subject matter is messy mean that economics is not a "science"? I dont know, as that is a question of semantics, but its a lot more than just "emotion and expectation."Economic models are only as good as their assumptions. Obama's are totally bad, and not even close to being accurate enough to base the worlds largest economies fiscal policy on them.

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:28 PM
Math isn't a science and I have a minor in it.I am 3 upper division units short of a math minor, so?

Then again, I have not used those muscles in a long time, so they have atrophied.

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:29 PM
Math is just a tool used by many professions including economists who have made the subject overly mathematical. Underlying economics is human action including the choices they make. What sort of consequences count as good consequences in their choices? You CANNOT ever separate it from that and that tends to get lost in how the mainstream teaches it. For gosh sakes, just look at the root origins of the word. It comes from the mistress of the household managing her home.

Just discussing what economics "is" happens to be engaging in philosophy. Philosophy address what is "X".This is part of the reason I left it, it reminded me of religion.

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:44 PM
Math is just a tool used by many professions including economists who have made the subject overly mathematical. Underlying economics is human action including the choices they make. What sort of consequences count as good consequences in their choices? You CANNOT ever separate it from that and that tends to get lost in how the mainstream teaches it. For gosh sakes, just look at the root origins of the word. It comes from the mistress of the household managing her home.

Just discussing what economics "is" happens to be engaging in philosophy. Philosophy address what is "X".So, what you are saying is, "There are no absolutes"?

petegz28
08-31-2011, 06:44 PM
Economics are so backward looking it's hard to grasp a lot of something that isn't already plainly obvious. While there are some models that can be effective at times of predicting future economic conditions, the bottom line is they are usually late to the party.

petegz28
08-31-2011, 06:49 PM
Econmics=too much looking at what happened and not enough looking at what is happening. That's why every time we go into a recession you always here the inevitble "the recession really started back in X". Ususally by the time their numbers confirm their beliefs it presents a classic "DUH" moment.

IMO there are few economic indicators that present any value. This would be:

1. Consumer spending
2. Unemployment
3. Consumer and wholesale prices
4. Housing starts

The rest are just fluff that are sub-sets of the above.

Are people spending? If yes then economy is better
Are people out of work? If yes the economy is worse than it could be
Are prices going up or down? If prices are going up then #1 and #4 might start taking a hit and signal a turn in the economy
Are people buying new homes? If yes the economy is good

Consumer confidence, Exisiting home sales, manufacturing indexes and to a lesser degree business inventories are all fairly worthless in the overall picture. That's just my opine.


Spending drives our economy. People spend when they have jobs. People spend more when prices are lowers. People buy new homes when they are secure about their financial future. Pretty simple.

Jenson71
08-31-2011, 06:53 PM
Over the summer, I read a great book called The Legal Analyst, which is a primer on law and economics, a subset of modern jurisprudence. Interesting stuff. Everyone should read that book. It's about cutting waste, improving, efficiency, and creating.

2bikemike
08-31-2011, 06:54 PM
This is "SmartWater":

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21G87Y9Y6DL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

It costs $26.44 for a case at Amazon.

I buy Arrowhead for $5.50 for a case at Costco.

What's the scientific formula that will get me to buy my water for $26.44 a case?


I wouldn't call Water at $26.44 a case Smart Water.

petegz28
08-31-2011, 06:56 PM
Over the summer, I read a great book called The Legal Analyst, which is a primer on law and economics, a subset of modern jurisprudence. Interesting stuff. Everyone should read that book. It's about cutting waste, improving, efficiency, and creating.

Might you suggest these concepts to our Congress?

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:58 PM
Econmics=too much looking at what happened and not enough looking at what is happening. That's why every time we go into a recession you always here the inevitble "the recession really started back in X". Ususally by the time their numbers confirm their beliefs it presents a classic "DUH" moment.

IMO there are few economic indicators that present any value. This would be:

1. Consumer spending
2. Unemployment
3. Consumer and wholesale prices
4. Housing starts

The rest are just fluff that are sub-sets of the above.

Are people spending? If yes then economy is better
Are people out of work? If yes the economy is worse than it could be
Are prices going up or down? If prices are going up then #1 and #4 might start taking a hit and signal a turn in the economy
Are people buying new homes? If yes the economy is good

Consumer confidence, Exisiting home sales, manufacturing indexes and to a lesser degree business inventories are all fairly worthless in the overall picture. That's just my opine.


Spending drives our economy. People spend when they have jobs. People spend more when prices are lowers. People buy new homes when they are secure about their financial future. Pretty simple.Nearly all the models assume "rational" behavior. Many times this isn't present in macro aggregate behavior of populations of people. Just look at the election in 2008 for example. All it took was vapid promises of hope and change. Was that a rational way to cast a vote?

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 06:59 PM
I wouldn't call Water at $26.44 a case Smart Water.I thought he was trying to say I was a dumb ass and should be drinking that in order to fix my problem. Sorry, Taco, I am beyond that waters capability of fixing.

Jenson71
08-31-2011, 07:04 PM
I wouldn't call Water at $26.44 a case Smart Water.

But it's cloud water! It's actually pretty crisp.

petegz28
08-31-2011, 07:06 PM
Nearly all the models assume "rational" behavior. Many times this isn't present in macro aggregate behavior of populations of people. Just look at the election in 2008 for example. All it took was vapid promises of hope and change. Was that a rational way to cast a vote?

I agree. And it is a bad assumption. Is it rational to not cry about higher costs if you are secure in your job and financial outlook yet cry about them when you might be out of work or hanging on by a thread at your job?

That's the problem with economics, particularly the kind that Bernanke likes to employ.

Lower interest rates are only beneficial if people are in a position to borrow. On the other hand, people like retirees who depend on their savings are making dick so are naturally spending less. People who are trying to save are saving more because they are earning dick on their savings. People are spending more on gas and food as opposed to luxury items because lower interest rates have devauled the living fuck out of our $.

Yet this jack off comes out and says he will keep the rates low for another 2 years. Well that's all well and good but you don't have anyone in the position to take advantage of those low rates except the Fed Gov.

Then you ahve the other side of the coin, the Fed Gov. Spend, spend and spend some more. That will spur jobs!!!! Nevermind the inefficient and economicly prohibitve regulations that keep getting passed making it harder and hard to do business cheaper.

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 07:11 PM
I agree. And it is a bad assumption. Is it rational to not cry about higher costs if you are secure in your job and financial outlook yet cry about them when you might be out of work or hanging on by a thread at your job?

That's the problem with economics, particularly the kind that Bernanke likes to employ.

Lower interest rates are only beneficial if people are in a position to borrow. On the other hand, people like retirees who depend on their savings are making dick so are naturally spending less. People who are trying to save are saving more because they are earning dick on their savings. People are spending more on gas and food as opposed to luxury items because lower interest rates have devauled the living **** out of our $.

Yet this jack off comes out and says he will keep the rates low for another 2 years. Well that's all well and good but you don't have anyone in the position to take advantage of those low rates except the Fed Gov.

Then you ahve the other side of the coin, the Fed Gov. Spend, spend and spend some more. That will spur jobs!!!! Nevermind the inefficient and economicly prohibitve regulations that keep getting passed making it harder and hard to do business cheaper. Oh sure, my same stores are good, but, my margins are getting the h33l beat out of them. People don't care that corn is at nearly 8 dollars a bushel, they won't pay it.

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 07:50 PM
IMHO economics is a social science, not a hard science.No, it's flaccid science unless you give it Viagra.

FD
08-31-2011, 08:01 PM
Nearly all the models assume "rational" behavior. Many times this isn't present in macro aggregate behavior of populations of people. Just look at the election in 2008 for example. All it took was vapid promises of hope and change. Was that a rational way to cast a vote?

Is there any rational way to cast a vote?

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 08:03 PM
I know that economists like to believe this. I'd gladly defer to you on economic theory, but the fact that you use math in the study of economics doesn't mean economics is math. Certainly not in the same sense that gravity is math. Gravity doesn't depend on human behavior following an assumed sense of human nature.All I know bro, is that when I was preparing for the graduate degree in Econ I was taking math right along side Engineering students. At the beginning of one of the classes, the teacher asked if there were any econ majors in there. Of course, he had a phd in econ, traded commodities for a living, and taught calculus for some side money. He had to pay for the Porsche.


Now we have the CP intellectual elite in here discussing the hardness and softness of Economics as if it is some kind of phallic study.

Calcountry
08-31-2011, 08:04 PM
Is there any rational way to cast a vote?Is the study of vote casting "rational".

Pollsters would argue, absolutely.