2 ms·

I don't think that makes it a science. When Karl Popper criticised economics (and freudianism) for being a pseudo-science, there wasn't a real macro-micro divi

I don't think that makes it a science. When Karl Popper criticised economics (and freudianism) for being a pseudo-science, there wasn't a real macro-micro divide. Adam Smith, Ricardo and the like were essentially micro-economists. You can experiment in some very small (raise the price of a product on a shelf) ways. The bulk of economics is about how these small components interact as a large dynamic. When it comes to predictions like "increasing minimum wage will lead to increased unemployment," it's never been adequately demonstrated experimentally.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> The bulk of economics is about how these small components interact as a large dynamic If I’m setting pricing and volumes at a firm, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the larger dynamics. I want to know how production variables will impact sales. For this, I can A/B test and rely on a deep corpus of research on queueing theory, supply and demand network and latency models, and logistical models.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > I don’t give a rat’s ass about the larger dynamics But just because you don't, doesn't mean they don't exist/matter. You can do a lot on your individual micro-scale, but you will have a very hard time understanding how these changes affect the overall economy on a macro scale. For all we know, "the market" is pretty much just a giant black box. It's not totally black, but we have a very hard time properly defining, or even quantifying, what's actually going on there.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > you will have a very hard time understanding how these changes affect the overall economy on a macro scale We understand the relationship between the temperature and pressure of ideal gasses without a precise presentation of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we can produce useful production functions without comprehending the complexity of the bulk.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      I'm not sure I can agree with that comparison because physics, even quantum mechanics, are a still considered a natural science. Economics, on the other hand, are usually considered part of the social sciences, due to the heavy sociological influences, which make modeling, predicting and testing extremely difficult. For all the talk of "the market", especially in the financial sector and by glorifying certain successful individuals, the reality seems to be far less understood than many people would admit to. Probably has to do with these people usually trying to sell their services/financial products with a reputation for "understanding and mastering the market".
- conanbatt 8y ago
  You cant replicate an A/B test in economics.
michaelcampbell 8y ago
> I don't think that makes it a science. Hypothesis, experimentation, the ability to negate/falsify, some predictive ability ... Either these things are not true, or your bar for "being a science" is higher than most.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> The bulk of economics is about how these small components interact as a large dynamic If I’m setting pricing and volumes at a firm, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the larger dynamics. I want to know how production variables will impact sales. For this, I can A/B test and rely on a deep corpus of research on queueing theory, supply and demand network and latency models, and logistical models.

freeflight 8y ago
> I don’t give a rat’s ass about the larger dynamics But just because you don't, doesn't mean they don't exist/matter. You can do a lot on your individual micro-scale, but you will have a very hard time understanding how these changes affect the overall economy on a macro scale. For all we know, "the market" is pretty much just a giant black box. It's not totally black, but we have a very hard time properly defining, or even quantifying, what's actually going on there.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > you will have a very hard time understanding how these changes affect the overall economy on a macro scale We understand the relationship between the temperature and pressure of ideal gasses without a precise presentation of quantum mechanics. Similarly, we can produce useful production functions without comprehending the complexity of the bulk.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    I'm not sure I can agree with that comparison because physics, even quantum mechanics, are a still considered a natural science. Economics, on the other hand, are usually considered part of the social sciences, due to the heavy sociological influences, which make modeling, predicting and testing extremely difficult. For all the talk of "the market", especially in the financial sector and by glorifying certain successful individuals, the reality seems to be far less understood than many people would admit to. Probably has to do with these people usually trying to sell their services/financial products with a reputation for "understanding and mastering the market".
conanbatt 8y ago
You cant replicate an A/B test in economics.

michaelcampbell 8y ago

> I don't think that makes it a science. Hypothesis, experimentation, the ability to negate/falsify, some predictive ability ... Either these things are not true, or your bar for "being a science" is higher than most.