3 ms·

You’re ignoring the pasts of my argument which disagree with your position. I argued that, since the effects of the ignored complications in physics are easy to

You’re ignoring the pasts of my argument which disagree with your position. I argued that, since the effects of the ignored complications in physics are easy to measure and account for in a specific situation, the ideal models are still useful. And that this isn’t the case with the economic models, since measuring friction is vastly simpler than measuring the irrationality of consumers in a given market. To boil it down: the unknowns (which are ignored to simplify calculations) in physic models and known; in economic models they are unknown. And, to put it another way: given a mass with momentum m which you want the change to m’, a simple physics model will tell you what acceleration to apply & would get you pretty close once you accounted for friction. Given an inflation rate and a target, no simple economic model would predict what policies to set with more accuracy than guessing. These economic models are useless for predicting real-world outcomes; they are pedagogic tools only.

moduspol 9y ago
I acknowledge physics models are more reliable. That doesn't mean a lack of certainty in some facets make economics not valuable. I'm disagreeing with you, not ignoring. Social sciences are full of unknowns, too, but that doesn't mean they have no applications in the real world. Economics are no different.
- falsedan 9y ago
  > I'm disagreeing with you, not ignoring. You sounds like you think I agree with you when you don't explain your position & say we agree. Saying 'economics is the same as <new subject>' is not a compelling argument without some justification behind it. > That doesn't mean a lack of certainty in some facets make economics not valuable. I'm specifically talking about the perfect free market model. I've always been talking about it. I put it to you that: this model is useless, and not comparable to the equivalent simple models in physics. > Economics are no different. They are different: it involves predicting the behaviour of a population of humans who are making high-level decision which affect their or others lives.

moduspol 9y ago

I acknowledge physics models are more reliable. That doesn't mean a lack of certainty in some facets make economics not valuable. I'm disagreeing with you, not ignoring. Social sciences are full of unknowns, too, but that doesn't mean they have no applications in the real world. Economics are no different.

falsedan 9y ago
> I'm disagreeing with you, not ignoring. You sounds like you think I agree with you when you don't explain your position & say we agree. Saying 'economics is the same as <new subject>' is not a compelling argument without some justification behind it. > That doesn't mean a lack of certainty in some facets make economics not valuable. I'm specifically talking about the perfect free market model. I've always been talking about it. I put it to you that: this model is useless, and not comparable to the equivalent simple models in physics. > Economics are no different. They are different: it involves predicting the behaviour of a population of humans who are making high-level decision which affect their or others lives.