3 ms·

Yet another of those articles about economics. "For one thing, if economics is about solving scarcity and making people happy by optimising prices, then it app

Yet another of those articles about economics. "For one thing, if economics is about solving scarcity and making people happy by optimising prices, then it appears to be doing a rather poor job. In many countries, inequality has ballooned in recent decades, while reported happiness levels seem to have peaked some time back in the 1960s. The financial crisis didn’t make many people happy, except some bankers." This is like blaming the wheels for the fact that you crashed your car into a wall. Or, imagine we would allow people to vote (along with all the political circus) on how physical principles are applied in industrial production: Why are the wings on 747 so ridiculously long and the capacity limited to couple hundred people? And what fool would build a ship from steel? Every child knows steel is heavier than water and will never flow, right? Once our societies will be ruled by technocratic dictators applying the science of economics to the whole market you could write articles like this.

ajuc 9y ago
> Once our societies will be ruled by technocratic dictators applying the science of economics to the whole market you could write articles like this. I've lived in one such state (only for like 8 years, but still). It was a complete failure. They had to inroduce martial law to keep people in line, and finally it defaulted and dictators left on their own. It didn't help that the science applied was marxism-leninism, but I'm not sure any of modern theories are that much better if you let a dictator follow them to the letter.
- abakker 9y ago
  True, but in our current regime in the US, it seems that both sides assiduously ignore technocrats in nearly every field. I think this is because the magnitude of our problems has been calling for large scale change in several related fields for some time. Of course, the trouble is that the technocrats are supposed to tell the government how to do something, but we seem to have fixated on actually doing nothing while looking busy. Our government would rather not change, in spite of all external evidence that we should.
- kurthr 9y ago
  I'm not sure that marxism-leninism is a science, but if we're going to use the Soviet Union in the 70-80s as an example of failure, one could just as well use success of China of the 00's. Most economic theories are tested by the scientific method, and it doesn't seem that was the case in the Soviet Union or its satellites, which I assume you are referring to. Frankly, by the 80s it was difficult to see the Soviet system as much more than a kleptocratic gerontocracy (theft by the government controlled by the old). The methods of distribution were no more communist than those currently used in China.
  - soVeryTired 9y ago
    > Most economic theories are tested by the scientific method I don't think they are. Can you give me an example of a prominent theory developed in the last thirty years that is considered by the mainstream to be debunked by data?
    - kurthr 9y ago
      I even agree with you that economics is pretty soft as science goes, more math but also a lot of p-hacking, but... they are argued, provide data, and are evaluated just like the other Social Sciences. See Picketty as a pop-econ example with plenty of research backing. The idea that in order for something to be a science a prominent theory developed in the last 30 years has to be debunked by data is silly. Most of the questionable basis for economics is much more than 30 years old (1988?). I might as well ask you the same question in Physics... is Physics no longer a science?
      - soVeryTired 9y ago
        I'm not a physicist but the discovery of the Higgs boson probably put paid to a number of competing theories [0]. Some papers probably are well-reviewed and evaluated. But as a small experiment, I picked a paper at random (Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work [1]) from this year's AEA conference and had a look through it. Despite having a promising title, there is (to my mind) no content in there. Nothing but unjustified assumptions about 'production functions' and 'productivity'. I don't see how a paper like that tells us anything about artificial intelligence or automation or work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_Higgs_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_H... [1] https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/HZrKTnsf https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/HZr...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ajuc 9y ago

> Once our societies will be ruled by technocratic dictators applying the science of economics to the whole market you could write articles like this. I've lived in one such state (only for like 8 years, but still). It was a complete failure. They had to inroduce martial law to keep people in line, and finally it defaulted and dictators left on their own. It didn't help that the science applied was marxism-leninism, but I'm not sure any of modern theories are that much better if you let a dictator follow them to the letter.

abakker 9y ago
True, but in our current regime in the US, it seems that both sides assiduously ignore technocrats in nearly every field. I think this is because the magnitude of our problems has been calling for large scale change in several related fields for some time. Of course, the trouble is that the technocrats are supposed to tell the government how to do something, but we seem to have fixated on actually doing nothing while looking busy. Our government would rather not change, in spite of all external evidence that we should.
kurthr 9y ago
I'm not sure that marxism-leninism is a science, but if we're going to use the Soviet Union in the 70-80s as an example of failure, one could just as well use success of China of the 00's. Most economic theories are tested by the scientific method, and it doesn't seem that was the case in the Soviet Union or its satellites, which I assume you are referring to. Frankly, by the 80s it was difficult to see the Soviet system as much more than a kleptocratic gerontocracy (theft by the government controlled by the old). The methods of distribution were no more communist than those currently used in China.
- soVeryTired 9y ago
  > Most economic theories are tested by the scientific method I don't think they are. Can you give me an example of a prominent theory developed in the last thirty years that is considered by the mainstream to be debunked by data?
  - kurthr 9y ago
    I even agree with you that economics is pretty soft as science goes, more math but also a lot of p-hacking, but... they are argued, provide data, and are evaluated just like the other Social Sciences. See Picketty as a pop-econ example with plenty of research backing. The idea that in order for something to be a science a prominent theory developed in the last 30 years has to be debunked by data is silly. Most of the questionable basis for economics is much more than 30 years old (1988?). I might as well ask you the same question in Physics... is Physics no longer a science?
    - soVeryTired 9y ago
      I'm not a physicist but the discovery of the Higgs boson probably put paid to a number of competing theories [0]. Some papers probably are well-reviewed and evaluated. But as a small experiment, I picked a paper at random (Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work [1]) from this year's AEA conference and had a look through it. Despite having a promising title, there is (to my mind) no content in there. Nothing but unjustified assumptions about 'production functions' and 'productivity'. I don't see how a paper like that tells us anything about artificial intelligence or automation or work. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_Higgs_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_H... [1] https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/HZrKTnsf https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2018/preliminary/paper/HZr...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]