Economists sued for malpractice?

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by beaslbob
http:///forum/post/3226331
Economics is not science and never can be.
They use the "Elegancy the argument" as if it were an actual test to see if the argument is realistic. When actually it just tests the argument for consistancy.
Unlike physics and other sciences, there is no experiments that can be conducted to precisly verify, quantify, and independently verify hypothses.
Therefore, economics starts with some assumptions (with or without some real world examples) then uses those assumptions to see if projected results are realistic.
For instance, Adam Smith (Wealth of nations) and Karl Marx (communist manefesto) looked at data, saw different assumptions which resulted in the two competing theories.
Reagen was right IMHO to state 'economists have been wrong' and other political figures (Obama) are wrong to blindly rely on a group of economists whose predictions and recommendations always point in the same direction.
my .02
When obama says economists, he really means political hacks...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3226282
While you're at it, tell the clerk you got the wrong change, because 20 minus 10 does not always equal 10...
I think you're affirming my point...

There is the world of theory, and then there is the world in which we all live. The two don't always play nicely together.
Economics is a soft science, the precepts of which (as beaslbob points out) cannot be empirically tested. I.e. it starts with some assumptions. I'm not criticizing the discipline, I'm just saying, we all know what assumptions can lead to. Ergo, to approach the science with a fair amount of skepticism as to what those assumptions are and why they exist is, to me, entirely rational.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3226282
you're not using the term "rational" in a daily sense of the word in the economic world.
That's my point. Why are we insistent on making mathematical models to prove theories when those theories only take into account short term, often profit based, rational decisions when the decision could actually be irrational given long term goals.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3226511
I think you're affirming my point...

There is the world of theory, and then there is the world in which we all live. The two don't always play nicely together.
Economics is a soft science, the precepts of which (as beaslbob points out) cannot be empirically tested. I.e. it starts with some assumptions. I'm not criticizing the discipline, I'm just saying, we all know what assumptions can lead to. Ergo, to approach the science with a fair amount of skepticism as to what those assumptions are and why they exist is, to me, entirely rational.
It is wild how opposite you perceive things (and I don't mean that in a bad way). Or maybe we shouldn't discredit rational math because of handful of situations where it isn't applicable...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3226696
It is wild how opposite you perceive things (and I don't mean that in a bad way). Or maybe we shouldn't discredit rational math because of handful of situations where it isn't applicable...
Or, perhaps all we should use to describe monetary situations is rational numbers?
Sorry - bad pun - but I hadda say it.

I don't discredit the math. What I question is the presumption the math is built upon. The math can only answer a problem which it is asked to solve. If a question is not asked, math remains mute.
One can look at it one of two ways as I see it:
1) Economic models are an inexact attempt to describe/anticipate real world events.
2) Economics is an exact replication and, therefore, an accurate predictor of real world events.
In the former case, shite happened which we didn't anticipate. Our algorithm was faulty. Whoops - we'll get right on adjusting it with that additional factor included.
If the latter is the case however, our current economic situation should've been not only predictable, but therefore also, is no accident.
In other words, I prefer the position that the experts don't know for sure. The only alternative is that they do...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3226773
Or, perhaps all we should use to describe monetary situations is rational numbers?
Sorry - bad pun - but I hadda say it.

I don't discredit the math. What I question is the presumption the math is built upon. The math can only answer a problem which it is asked to solve. If a question is not asked, math remains mute.
One can look at it one of two ways as I see it:
1) Economic models are an inexact attempt to describe/anticipate real world events.
2) Economics is an exact replication and, therefore, an accurate predictor of real world events.
In the former case, shite happened which we didn't anticipate. Our algorithm was faulty. Whoops - we'll get right on adjusting it with that additional factor included.
If the latter is the case however, our current economic situation should've been not only predictable, but therefore also, is no accident.
In other words, I prefer the position that the experts don't know for sure. The only alternative is that they do...
See this is what I don't get, I've yet to read an legitamate economic theorist, that don't do a good job explaining their areas for potential error. Or justifying their assumptions.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3227023
See this is what I don't get, I've yet to read an legitamate economic theorist, that don't do a good job explaining their areas for potential error. Or justifying their assumptions.
I don't disagree. Mostly what I'm saying is that, while the same is true of hard sciences, it's at that point that the error expectations and justification of assumptions get tested. In economics, it is not possible to test those things, therefore, it is not possible to know for certain where the theory went wrong or whether any proposed fix will be effective.
That's not to say we can't learn from our mistakes, just that the best we can do is assume that we did.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
"So are people utility maximizing and rational and can we make sense of interpersonal comparisons of utility in a mathematical way?"
No. But you know, people say, 'greed has suddenly increased.' But it isn't that greed's increased. What's increased is the realization that you've got a free field to reach out for what you'd like to do. Everybody would still like to retire with a satisfactory nest egg in real terms. And the tragedy of this unnecessary eight-year interlude is that much of what has been accumulated is gone and gone forever. And no amount of pumping is going to bring back into reality what were ill-advised overextensions of bridges to nowhere and housing developments for which there was no effective demand.
With the Foundations, I looked around for the best bicycle in town. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than what had been assigned previously.
http://correspondents.theatlantic.co...n_part_two.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top