Economics

Post Reply New Topic

What do people think about the field of economics?

Specifically, what do people think about it's methodology, it's assumptions, fields of economics, schools of economic thought, Nobel Prize winners in economics, major thinkers in economics, policies that seem to be promoted by the current field of economics, etc?

Note, I know this seems broad... umm.... I didn't really want to get into a specific economic issue but rather see where this thread goes.

well, it's not known as 'the dismal science' for nothing... Economics is sort of a shotgun marriage of psychology and statistics (sociology if you want to press it..

I found it both boring and hard, but it sure beats accounting. Right now, economics is in a state of flux, because so many theories have been proved wrong (or right) recently. Harry Truman once wished for a 'one-armed economist', so he couldn't say 'on the other hand'...

If you laid all the economists from end to end, you still wouldn't reach a conclusion...

i'm prejudiced, I have a minor in econ, but it's ancient... If you're in college now, try talking with a counselor. Better yet, ask yourself the question "what skills will the world need on the day you graduate?" Hope that helps.

I suppose one could call it that, at least the modern form of it, but I wouldn't ascribe it so heavily to the field itself historically. I mean, I would think that economics actually existed before psychology to some extent. I mean, modern psychology didn't start until after Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", as I think psychology is usually tracked back to Wilhelm Wundt and William James who both were 19th century figures. Freud is the same in that regard as well. Math also wasn't a major part of many original formulations of economic ideas, mostly it is a part of the modern neo-classical school. Economics also predates sociology to some extent as Comte, Spencer, Marx, and Durkheim were also all 19th century figures, but Adam Smith published during the Revolutionary War. I mean, the "founder" approach that I am taking can be questioned, but it is hard to call something a descendant of a field that is usually considered to have already been born at one particular time.

Well, it is in a state of flux also because nobody really knows who has been proven right or wrong. I think some people are putting more emphasis in Hyman Minsky's work because of all that has happened, but I am not sure what the ultimate result will be. Perhaps just a shift more to the Keynesian side? I dunno.

Umm.. not really looking for advice. I actually wanted to start up a topic that hopefully had a more theoretical slant and ability to deal with perhaps opposing positions.

From a computational standpoint, we should be able to come up with a damn good approximation model, even for a large complex economy. The problem is the inherent corruption on all sides. For one, pure mathematicians and other theoretical scientists rarely have a personal stake in the outcome of any problem, aside from any investment of time and effort they make. And generally, no one cares to try to influence them. But with economics, everyone has their own stake and bias is unavoidable, influence is unavoidable. So economists can't agree on anything because different things will benefit them personally or whichever group is paying them or otherwise influencing them. The same basic principle applies to the masses. Nobody's spending their time/effort/money to convince the masses of the validity of the Riemann hypothesis, but plenty will make an effort to convince others of an economic idea for their own benefit, leading to trends that are harder to predict. Sure, buy a house now, you don't need to be able to afford it, because with the way the market's going up, it'll pay for itself! Normally, you would expect an idea that really just sounds like a pretty bad idea all around to only gain fringe acceptance, but when it comes with the promise and/or potential for personal gain, it becomes much tougher to account for in a general model.

Honestly, I disagree. To come up with a "pretty good approximation" is basically asking for economists to solve the economy, which is a chaotic system more akin to weather patterns then it is to Newton's apple.

One issue is that using macroeconomic data would not allow us to have an accurate picture of the economy I wouldn't think. As I think that the Lucas critique has basically shown that simple macroeconomic indicators are insufficient for predicting the economy as relationships may not necessarily hold, so I do not see how this model that you desire could be created and be accurate. Because of that, a lot of microfoundations would have to be established, and I would think it would likely be a rather difficult task to see how everything fits together, particularly given that issues of firm entry and exit could be difficult to deal with, and I would doubt that the rise and fall of industries that would be necessary to know could ever be predicted mathematically with great ability by a central body, simply because of the unknowns that would be involved.

I actually do not think that the "influence" hypothesis really has much supporting it. I mean, it is undeniable that people are motivated by incentives, but I would not think that most economists are realistically underneath some group's pay, or that these individuals only faithfully serve their favored group. The only aspect of this that I really see is ideological biases being possible, but even then economists are probably more like other economists than anything else.

I suppose you might disagree with my disagreement, but hopefully you understand the reasoning that goes behind it, or at least can ask for clarification if there is some aspect that you disagree with.

a science that always forgets humans don't act rationally!

What about behavioral economics?

that is different, I was refering to standard economics.

It strikes me as a rather absurd field of study. I suppose there are some positive aspects to it, but it just seems silly to me.

"Assuming all variables remain constant...."

Riiiiiiiiight.....................

Sorry, but most of the economists that I've known have been idiots. But, then again, most of them were federal government employees.

or better yet, trying to say "The market WILL react this way because people know the recession is temparory." Right, large groups of people behaving rationally.

Well, the issue is that "assuming all variables remain constant" is basically a scientific necessity unless one can predict the change in variables. So, I wouldn't consider the study to be absurd on that ground alone.

Hmm.... part of that might be professional training pushing a rather bizarre perspective on these individuals. (economists usually don't think like other people so their thoughts will sometimes seem to miss something to non-economists)

It could also be the individuals.

I think that on average though, economists are smarter than other social scientists, but I think that conclusion is based upon research that is 3-4 decades old by now.

Being smarter than other social scientists still leaves them well behind mathematicians, engineers, physicians, and natural scientists.

I think the word you're searching for here is the ability to question oneself and huh, objectivity? <.< I personnally despise the way our current economics allows people to 1) use "privileges" to stash away their insanely huge amount of money into tax havens. 2) Treat humans as nothing short but trash or consumers ( and in either case, you're just a number in their game, unless you "somehow" make it high in the hierarchy, usually by dubious ways). And well, obviously this all leads to us deteriorating our planet in search of new primary sources of materials. =.=

Hmm, well personally, Economics is one of my biggest interests. It really caters to my kind of thinking, and I find it pretty cool how "economics-style" thinking can be applied to so many other things. People also don't know too much about it yet, so it leaves a lot to discover. That's one of the reasons I went into it. What I hate is that college manages to make it feel like a chore. You've said you don't like college either, AG, right?

Well, economics is so complex, that you have to break everything down into teeny tiny pieces. You have to think "what if variable 'x' stays constant? What if variable 'y' stays constant instead? How does one thing affect the other?" You really need to be a mastermind (INTJ personality type) if you want to be a good economist. You can't just look at everything so one-dimensionally, lest you be one of those idiots on the news last year who said "oh yeah, this recession will be over by the end of the year!"


Actually I've read that that Economics majors have some of the highest analytical skills out of all other majors, and that we score the highest on the LSAT. Don't dismiss us so quickly.