5 ms·

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can

• glhaynes 17y ago
  I'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 ago
      As 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 ago
        Economics 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 ago
          Exactly. 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 ago
            Actually 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 ago
              You 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 ago
      You 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      Exactly. That's actual contribution to a field of knowledge, not a political essay.
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  • 17y ago
• camccann 17y ago
  Physicists 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Economics can contribute to economics, so long as they are not dynamic macroeconomic theorists. That stuff is witchcraft.
• waldrews 17y ago
  Was it Max Planck who gave up economics for physics after finding the former too difficult?
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
• laut 17y ago
  Economics is not a natural science. It is a social science. It's pretty important to understand this, but most people don't.