Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[mainiac]

There are empirical results, you just aren't following the science well enough to understand them.  If you think you are being drowned in the terminology then tough shit.  Science requires you actually learn before you can judge.

As for the rest of it, it's about as empirical as blaming physicists when a drone blows up an afgan wedding.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't have to be in a field to see when it functions in a bullshit way. I'm not a biologist but I'll say with certainty that evolutionary biology is true and intelligent design isn't. I'm not a physicist but I understand in layman's terms the problem presented by quantum mechanics and special relativity. And in the same way I can see that economics as it exists is so mired in false pretenses that it isn't useful. I mean, look at the way this conversation has gone. Surely you can't say that everything I've brought up is invalid, even if I'm not an economist, but there's no effort to explain it or suggest how it could be changed. That's where economics is. It's about denial of the externalities and defense of the field's presuppositions.

I want to know what you think should be done, I really do! Because as is there is a clear and all-consuming bias in economics.

As for the terminology drowning comment, that's my response to you using something very specific and field-oriented subjects to try and lock me out of any possible argument. You don't get an "I win" button because you're an economist. Everything is subject to criticism, even if the critic is from the outside and is not as learned on the specifics. Indeed, in a situation where the established truths of a field are organized to protect certain assumptions, which is my central argument here, outside criticism is even more important. The subject you bring up is important, I'll conceed, but how can such things even be dealt with when economists are only taught to consider certain solutions in a way that verges on determinism?

[GreatJustice]

It isn't really fair to attack the entire field of economics, which actually does have worthwhile observations, policy advice, and so on. However, there are a lot of issues in the field of economics that deserve critique, mostly relating to the complete uselessness of most econometric models and a lot of ideas certain economists are built backwards. For example, Neo-Keynesians (who are really more like Monetarists honestly but that's beside the point) basically start from the assumption that government spending is the only thing preventing perpetual unemployment and that work backwards to create a theory built around this (that cleverly disguises the underlying assumptions made).

[Frumple]

... maaaaybe take the wildly off topic economics derail to another thread?

[mainiac]

I don't have to be in a field to see when it functions in a bullshit way.

No you dont but you need to have a fucking clue what you are talking about.  You say it isn't empirical.  I know for a fact it is.  You are know nothing about a field and arguing about it's contents with an expert.  There's more to economics then the econ 101 fairy tales you think it is.  It's like if you describe math as nothing but highschool geometry.

[Sergarr]

I'm pretty sure economics is a science. It's a science about the ways and mechanisms to distribute wealth, and the potential results of the said distribution.

There are testable predictions.

Like, if the currency experiences deflation, then people will be saving it instead of spending it. If the currency experiences inflation, then people will be more inclined to spend it instead of letting the currency lie around uselessly.

And there's an entire section of economics dealing with the supposedly "random" economical fluctuation which actually shows that most of these "random" economical fluctuations are not, in fact, random, but instead a combination of several economic cycles.

[Phmcw]

Every science is weakened by the injection of politics. But economics is especially vulnerable since manipulating the states economical policies can be extremely profitable.


That being said, there is no doubt that the field is a science, the only question is : how valid are the current theories, and how honest are peoples being with their applications.
Last thing : science say what happen, not what you should do. Aiming for maximum growth is a bad idea, IMHO.

[Darvi]

Aiming for maximum growth is a bad idea, IMHO.

*insert cancer analogy*

[Sergarr]

Every science is weakened by the injection of politics. But economics is especially vulnerable since manipulating the states economical policies can be extremely profitable.


That being said, there is no doubt that the field is a science, the only question is : how valid are the current theories, and how honest are peoples being with their applications.
Last thing : science say what happen, not what you should do. Aiming for maximum growth is a bad idea, IMHO.

That's why non-Reaganists have governmental regulations to stabilize it.

[Owlbread]

This is the article about the departing leader of Scotland that I mentioned earlier. It's a good one if you aren't Scottish because she's writing from the perspective of an American observer.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Spoiler: Hope that Hungarian protesters will succeed. (click to show/hide)

BTW, are there any successful rulers named Victor? Can't remember any.

[smjjames]

Spoiler: Hope that Hungarian protesters will succeed. (click to show/hide)

BTW, are there any successful rulers named Victor? Can't remember any.

Various queens named Victoria? Though the Queen Victoria of England I was thinking of is more so-so I think? The brits around here would have a better knowledge and opinion of her.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_II_of_Italy First king of an united Italy since the Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy

Theres a bunch of other Victor whatevers of italy and sardina, but I don't know by what measure you would define as successful.

Not sure if you're including presidents and prime ministers by 'ruler' along with kings and emperors.

[Loud Whispers]

Queen Victoria is historically one of the most popular of British monarchs, up there with Elizabeth I and II. Victoria also reigned during the absolute height of the British Empire and all its contributions to culture, science and industry, which helped somewhat.

Though to what extent she was a ruler is questionable, what with the monarchy being mostly symbolic.

[Jopax]

Victor von Doom?

[Owlbread]

Queen Victoria is historically one of the most popular of British monarchs, up there with Elizabeth I and II. Victoria also reigned during the absolute height of the British Empire and all its contributions to culture, science and industry, which helped somewhat.

Though to what extent she was a ruler is questionable, what with the monarchy being mostly symbolic.

I of course hate her ghostly guts for obvious reasons but even I must admit that, as a ruler, she was "successful" in the same way that Stalin was successful.