4 ms·

> To this day, economics continues to be taught not as a story of arguments—not, like any other social science, as a welter of often warring theoretical perspec

> To this day, economics continues to be taught not as a story of arguments—not, like any other social science, as a welter of often warring theoretical perspectives—but rather as something more like physics, the gradual realization of universal, unimpeachable mathematical truths. This has always been my main frustration with economics. As a field, it certainly has value and usefulness, just like sociology, anthropology, or any of the 'softer' sciences. However, it eschews the tradition of teaching a variety of views and perspectives for the rigid orthodoxy of classical physics or chemistry, without the clean experimental results to back it up. Microeconomics and econometrics take a much more concrete and practical view and well-describe localized economic phenomenon, but macroeconomics is a bastardized combination of sociology and capitalist political theory mashed into an unfalsifiable 'science' and taught as such.

lordnacho 7y ago
As someone who studied economics, I've always found the history of the subject itself to be more illuminating than much of the content of it. Both due to the content having this not-rigorous quality to it and because a lot of macroeconomics seems to be politics in disguise. You're right about micro though.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  > Both due to the content having this not-rigorous quality to it and because a lot of macroeconomics seems to be politics in disguise. Yeah, I'm cool with macro conceptually, but we shouldn't pretend it's something it's not. The history is super interesting too, it connects with tons of important events, countries, and changes in the perception of society. > You're right about micro though. Interestingly micro is the one place where you can run moderately-well controlled experiments too :D.
  - woopwoop 7y ago
    What are some examples of these experiments?
    - lordnacho 7y ago
      So for instance it was discovered that tit-for-tat is often a dominant cooperation/punishment strategy. This was even tested with programs. Sugarscape as well, if we stay in coding world.
    - QuesnayJr 7y ago
      The most recent econ Nobel was given to Banerjee, Duflo, and Kremer for experiments in development economics. Most of these assess the cost-benefit of different policies. Kahneman and Smith also won the 2002 econ Nobel for experiments -- Kahneman for decision-making under uncertainty, and Smith for experimental markets.
- mr_toad 7y ago
  > a lot of macroeconomics seems to be politics in disguise. It used to be called political economy. But macroeconomics went off on a math-trip in the 20th century that rivals string theory in its practical applications.
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    The opposite is true. Before the mathematics, everyone in macroeconomics was hopelessly confused. The mathematics makes the claims people are making much clearer. People still argue about what Marx meant in Capital. Nobody argues what Kydland and Prescott meant in "Aggregate Fluctations and Time to Build" (an early mathy path on macroeconomics), because it's all right there in the math.
lukifer 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  Haha, essentially, although I have a great deal of respect for the 'softer' sciences. _Most_ researchers are thoughtful enough to understand the limits of the approach and teach in kind. Economics are a special kind of arrogant though.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> but macroeconomics is a bastardized combination of sociology and capitalist political theory mashed into an unfalsifiable 'science' and taught as such. It also serves as highly effective propaganda for its embedded political ideas. It's a lot harder to question the politics if you've been indoctrinated into believing they have the truth of a natural science.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  That's the principle reason for teaching economics as an objective truth, "positive" rather than "normative" (a set of distinctions I always have to look up). If what you're teaching is simply "natural law", then "it is what it is". If it's a moral discipline (which was what Adam Smith rooted his study in), it's ... rather something else. There are some useful bits to economics. There's a lot of cruft in it as well. A huge part of the value of studying the field isn't the knowledge you gain about the world, but of the delusions of many of those who claim to understand it, or know what should be done for it.
  - nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
    I take a "Manufacturing Consent"-style approach to reading economics :)
- QuesnayJr 7y ago
  "Propaganda" is always a convenient label to throw around about ideas that you don't agree with. Economics isn't perfect (economists are human), but it is engaged with the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that capitalism is pretty good at delivering goods and services, that it suffers from a business cycle, and that markets by themselves are not good at correcting externalities (such as pollution). Economics engages with this empirical reality. The people who are quickest to call economics "propaganda" are the ones who want to deny this reality.
hogFeast 7y ago
If you are criticising economics for the lack of "clean experimental results", the problem is with your expectations. Everything depends on context. That means that results won't apply 100% of the time. It doesn't mean that economics is useless, medicines don't work the same way with every patient, but it does mean that you have to humble about what you know and be prepared to change your mind.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  I'm not claiming they require "clean experimental results" for the field to have validity. I think sociology is a very valid and valuable field that doesn't have such a thing. My problem is the misrepresentation of a sociology-like field as experimental physics, or worse, a study of morality. Both are exceptionally common in economics, and I've had several teachers and professors present it that way. It's the orthodoxy surrounding a very specific, Reagan-era capitalist interpretation of the function and behaviour of a society taught as a universal law.
  - hogFeast 7y ago
    It isn't like sociology...you either haven't studied economics or sociology. And I would agree generally but I think your reasoning is wrong. Economics of itself dictates no outcome. This is an argument that sociologists often make (i.e. the person uses the tool but the tool also uses the person) but, ironically, this is an example of trying to universalise a principle of sociology to an area where it doesn't really apply. Why? Because if you want to value any end...just build a model that does so. And btw, arguments generally about the function of a society are politics. You will find this kind of thing taught in politics, not economics. Economists can have a view on them but you have to use politics to demonstrate that any goal of society is better than any other...which is inherently subjective anyway. Ironically, the main people who complain about economics having an orthodoxy about the function of society generally have fairly rigid ideas on this topic already.
    - nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
      > It isn't like sociology...you either haven't studied economics or sociology. I love this dig specifically because you missed my point. I was simply addressing the fact that I don't think a field needs to have experimentation to have value. > And btw, arguments generally about the function of a society are politics. No shit. > Because if you want to value any end...just build a model that does so. > Economists can have a view on them but you have to use politics to demonstrate that any goal of society is better than any other. That's exactly my point. Economists conflate their model of Western Capitalism (for better or worse) with a moral position or _necessary_ condition for society. I know their are economists that don't do this, but none I've met or been taught by.
chewz 7y ago
> However, it eschews the tradition of teaching a variety of views and perspectives for the rigid orthodoxy of classical physics or chemistry, without the clean experimental results to back it up. I have same problem with astrology and numerology. Useful and entertaining and you can read about it in almost every newspaper but where is the proof?
QuesnayJr 7y ago
You think physics doesn't have warring theoretical perspectives? I suggest reading about the history of string theory, or MOND versus dark matter. Progress in economics is slow, but there is progress. Questions do get settled. We don't mull over issues indefinitely. Most disputes about macroeconomics were settled by the financial crisis. We have all new disputes now.

lordnacho 7y ago

As someone who studied economics, I've always found the history of the subject itself to be more illuminating than much of the content of it. Both due to the content having this not-rigorous quality to it and because a lot of macroeconomics seems to be politics in disguise. You're right about micro though.

nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
> Both due to the content having this not-rigorous quality to it and because a lot of macroeconomics seems to be politics in disguise. Yeah, I'm cool with macro conceptually, but we shouldn't pretend it's something it's not. The history is super interesting too, it connects with tons of important events, countries, and changes in the perception of society. > You're right about micro though. Interestingly micro is the one place where you can run moderately-well controlled experiments too :D.
- woopwoop 7y ago
  What are some examples of these experiments?
  - lordnacho 7y ago
    So for instance it was discovered that tit-for-tat is often a dominant cooperation/punishment strategy. This was even tested with programs. Sugarscape as well, if we stay in coding world.
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    The most recent econ Nobel was given to Banerjee, Duflo, and Kremer for experiments in development economics. Most of these assess the cost-benefit of different policies. Kahneman and Smith also won the 2002 econ Nobel for experiments -- Kahneman for decision-making under uncertainty, and Smith for experimental markets.
mr_toad 7y ago
> a lot of macroeconomics seems to be politics in disguise. It used to be called political economy. But macroeconomics went off on a math-trip in the 20th century that rivals string theory in its practical applications.
- QuesnayJr 7y ago
  The opposite is true. Before the mathematics, everyone in macroeconomics was hopelessly confused. The mathematics makes the claims people are making much clearer. People still argue about what Marx meant in Capital. Nobody argues what Kydland and Prescott meant in "Aggregate Fluctations and Time to Build" (an early mathy path on macroeconomics), because it's all right there in the math.

lukifer 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_envy

nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
Haha, essentially, although I have a great deal of respect for the 'softer' sciences. _Most_ researchers are thoughtful enough to understand the limits of the approach and teach in kind. Economics are a special kind of arrogant though.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> but macroeconomics is a bastardized combination of sociology and capitalist political theory mashed into an unfalsifiable 'science' and taught as such. It also serves as highly effective propaganda for its embedded political ideas. It's a lot harder to question the politics if you've been indoctrinated into believing they have the truth of a natural science.

dredmorbius 7y ago
That's the principle reason for teaching economics as an objective truth, "positive" rather than "normative" (a set of distinctions I always have to look up). If what you're teaching is simply "natural law", then "it is what it is". If it's a moral discipline (which was what Adam Smith rooted his study in), it's ... rather something else. There are some useful bits to economics. There's a lot of cruft in it as well. A huge part of the value of studying the field isn't the knowledge you gain about the world, but of the delusions of many of those who claim to understand it, or know what should be done for it.
- nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
  I take a "Manufacturing Consent"-style approach to reading economics :)
QuesnayJr 7y ago
"Propaganda" is always a convenient label to throw around about ideas that you don't agree with. Economics isn't perfect (economists are human), but it is engaged with the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that capitalism is pretty good at delivering goods and services, that it suffers from a business cycle, and that markets by themselves are not good at correcting externalities (such as pollution). Economics engages with this empirical reality. The people who are quickest to call economics "propaganda" are the ones who want to deny this reality.

hogFeast 7y ago

If you are criticising economics for the lack of "clean experimental results", the problem is with your expectations. Everything depends on context. That means that results won't apply 100% of the time. It doesn't mean that economics is useless, medicines don't work the same way with every patient, but it does mean that you have to humble about what you know and be prepared to change your mind.

nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
I'm not claiming they require "clean experimental results" for the field to have validity. I think sociology is a very valid and valuable field that doesn't have such a thing. My problem is the misrepresentation of a sociology-like field as experimental physics, or worse, a study of morality. Both are exceptionally common in economics, and I've had several teachers and professors present it that way. It's the orthodoxy surrounding a very specific, Reagan-era capitalist interpretation of the function and behaviour of a society taught as a universal law.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  It isn't like sociology...you either haven't studied economics or sociology. And I would agree generally but I think your reasoning is wrong. Economics of itself dictates no outcome. This is an argument that sociologists often make (i.e. the person uses the tool but the tool also uses the person) but, ironically, this is an example of trying to universalise a principle of sociology to an area where it doesn't really apply. Why? Because if you want to value any end...just build a model that does so. And btw, arguments generally about the function of a society are politics. You will find this kind of thing taught in politics, not economics. Economists can have a view on them but you have to use politics to demonstrate that any goal of society is better than any other...which is inherently subjective anyway. Ironically, the main people who complain about economics having an orthodoxy about the function of society generally have fairly rigid ideas on this topic already.
  - nlfwhulsdhouv 7y ago
    > It isn't like sociology...you either haven't studied economics or sociology. I love this dig specifically because you missed my point. I was simply addressing the fact that I don't think a field needs to have experimentation to have value. > And btw, arguments generally about the function of a society are politics. No shit. > Because if you want to value any end...just build a model that does so. > Economists can have a view on them but you have to use politics to demonstrate that any goal of society is better than any other. That's exactly my point. Economists conflate their model of Western Capitalism (for better or worse) with a moral position or _necessary_ condition for society. I know their are economists that don't do this, but none I've met or been taught by.

chewz 7y ago

> However, it eschews the tradition of teaching a variety of views and perspectives for the rigid orthodoxy of classical physics or chemistry, without the clean experimental results to back it up. I have same problem with astrology and numerology. Useful and entertaining and you can read about it in almost every newspaper but where is the proof?

QuesnayJr 7y ago

You think physics doesn't have warring theoretical perspectives? I suggest reading about the history of string theory, or MOND versus dark matter. Progress in economics is slow, but there is progress. Questions do get settled. We don't mull over issues indefinitely. Most disputes about macroeconomics were settled by the financial crisis. We have all new disputes now.