4 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoWhat are some examples of these experiments?
- lordnacho 7y agoSo 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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.