4 ms·

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

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.