7 ms·
Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
by julius_geezer 17y ago
Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
- nlabs 17y agoBad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.
- glhaynes 17y agoI'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems (from a certain perspective, at least) that physics is much more thoroughly understood than economics. We can make really precise predictions in physics... economics, not so much.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoAs the only reason we're paying attention to this non-mathematical essay is because Albert Einstein wrote it, noting that he was not actually an economist is entirely valid.
- freebsd_dude 17y agoEconomics in the 40-50s was about Markets vs. Planning. The big economic names at the time - Hayek, Keynes, were debating the merits and faults of markets and planning. Einstein threw in his 2 cents. That he was a physicist has no bearing on his argument.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoExactly. And yet the only reason this essay has been dug up is because the greatest physicist of the day wrote it. Hayek, Keynes, et al discussed the economics - the models, the math. Einstein here makes a political argument, complete with hand-waving about how economics can't be used to judge his position because it's so last-wave. This is the political version of Linus Pauling and vitamin C .
- freebsd_dude 17y agoActually Hayek and Keynes never used much math in their arguments. Keynes ideas were put into economic models by later economists with science backgrounds: Alvin Hansen, Paul Sameulson, James Tobin, etc. Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious. The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics. Had the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place. Edit: original poster = I mean the guy who said JM Keynes on QED - had he pointed out socialism flaws this discussion would have never taken place.
- Semiapies 17y agoYou are far out of your depth; this'll be my last to you. "Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious." Please point that out to the people trying to sleaze in the claim he was right. :) "The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics." To quote another physicist, you're not even wrong! "ad the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place." Well no - gnosis apparently would have never submitted this, judging by some of his other remarks.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y ago"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics" Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoYou seem to be misreading what I wrote, above. That or you might need to RTFA and compare what Einstein is saying with a discussion of economics.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Anon84 17y agoYou mean like the 2000 Nobel prize in Economics? The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in Physics with highest honors. I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of human behavior. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/mcfadden-autobio.html http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoExactly. That's actual contribution to a field of knowledge, not a political essay.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- 17y ago
- camccann 17y agoPhysicists can intelligently contribute to economics. I remain to be convinced that economists can, in general, intelligently contribute to economics. At least physics gets results...
- mtalantikite 17y agoI hear where you're coming from, economics definitely can feel clumsy at times, but that to me is even more reason to continue pushing it for breakthroughs. Economics is a relatively new field of study compared to the history of physics.
- freebsd_dude 17y agoEconomics can contribute to economics, so long as they are not dynamic macroeconomic theorists. That stuff is witchcraft.
- waldrews 17y agoWas it Max Planck who gave up economics for physics after finding the former too difficult?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- laut 17y agoEconomics is not a natural science. It is a social science. It's pretty important to understand this, but most people don't.
- gnosis 17y agoEinstein anticipates and addresses this criticism in his essay: "...economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future [which has evolved beyond the 'predatory phase' with which economists of today are concerned with]. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. ... For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society." (Comments in brackets are mine)
- Semiapies 17y agoI will note that scientists of any degree of renown tend to be absolutely fantastic at careful, hard-nosed, scientific analysis that leads to the conclusion that the very political beliefs they already have are objectively correct. Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stronger evidence against command economies and socialism. (Socialism in the 20th century sense, not "welfare systems bolted atop market systems" in the Teabagger sense.)
- seanl 17y agoArguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure. My point is not to claim that either of these points of view are true or false. My point is that complex, somewhat subjective and potentially contentious historical analyses are required to attribute causation to the 20th century's multiple clusters of mass homicide (unlike, say, the deaths caused by the 1918 flu pandemic where an objective attribution of cause is relatively straightforward). The evidence is not as straightforward as you portray it. (edit: I missed out the word 'deaths' in the first paragraph)
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoWell, as it's not an economic argument, I'd agree. However, his political argument in that essay should not be given special credence because he was one of history's greatest physicists.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoMaybe you mean axioms. I don't see why you're defending an essay pimping socialism after the results of socialism over the course of the 20th century. Einstein had the excuse of much of what happened in the Soviet Union being effectively covered up; in the wake of our knowledge of what happened there, during the Cultural Revolution, etc., it's just not excusable in 2010. It's like linking to Ludwig von Mises rambling about FTL travel.
- freebsd_dude 17y agohuh? They are called the "Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics" - look it up in any graduate econ text. Stop ranting.
- Semiapies 17y agoYou'll know when I rant. :)
- tjgabbour 17y agoThere's nothing wrong with voicing an opinion on the economy which you depend on, particularly if you've thought about it a lot. The world would probably be a better place if this were more common. (After all, wars are even fought over economic incompatibilities. Take the US and old Soviet Union; their economies even had crucial similarities, like top-down workplace decisionmaking.) In probably any country it's very difficult to be an economics prof if you go outside narrow ideological bounds. Like if you wanted to pursue Participatory Economics or something, rather than forms of capitalism or marxism-leninism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics