3 ms·

Economics is a weird subject, even economists get predictions wrong all the time. It is easier to talk about logical subjects like Math or programming, vs somet

by akudha 5y ago

Economics is a weird subject, even economists get predictions wrong all the time. It is easier to talk about logical subjects like Math or programming, vs something like social issues or economics. I don't know how to have a useful conversation about such topics, I understand your frustration. I suppose everyone has good intentions and is trying to help at the same time by sharing their theories - which could be bad or good, but definitely hard to digest, as a reader

mbesto 5y ago
> Economics is a weird subject, even economists get predictions wrong all the time. It's because economics is seen as a science but ignores (not completely) human behavior. You can't test economic theories with the scientific method because there is simply no way to create a market vacuum to test. This is why behavioral economics is so interesting IMO. It's not definitive but it at least it provides explanations.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  > It's because economics is seen as a science but ignores (not completely) human behavior. That does not describe what economics has looked like for a few decades already. These days, it’s all about human behavior. Just look at the sample of newest papers collected at NBER: https://www.nber.org/papers?page=1&perPage=50&sortBy=public_date#listing-77041 https://www.nber.org/papers?page=1&perPage=50&sortBy=public_... If you look at these, it should be clear that most of published economics these days is basically social science done using quantitative methods. The homo economicus has always been a straw man, but these days it is laughably so.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You can't test economic theories with the scientific method because there is simply no way to create a market vacuum to test. The scientific method doesn't require laboratory controls; statistically controlled experiments are just as consistent with the scientific method. Now, there are branches of economics which are, more of less overtly, not empirical science but essentially theology, the Austrian school being the most well-known, overt example, and they and their practitioners tend not to be distinguished from those of empirical economics when covered by the mainstream media...
B-Con 5y ago
I think of economics as having the classic two sides of theory and practice, but with the quirk that the practice is grossly inefficient because it's a dynamic feedback system based on itself. Engineering takes theoretical principles and pits them into practice. Here's what the free body diagram of a structure might be, but how do you ensure it stays up with abnormal conditions and a client who's going the extra mile to cut costs? Imagine if in engineering, constants changed the more precisely they were measured. pi is different in the USA because China measured it more precisely yesterday. Or if weather patterns changed to exploit the weaknesses of a building to maximize damage. I don't think econ is theoretically irrational, it's just that the application in the public eye is seldom isolated to simple, static systems. When applied to simple systems, I think econ is quite reasonable and makes accurate predictions.

by akudha 5y ago

mbesto 5y ago

> Economics is a weird subject, even economists get predictions wrong all the time. It's because economics is seen as a science but ignores (not completely) human behavior. You can't test economic theories with the scientific method because there is simply no way to create a market vacuum to test. This is why behavioral economics is so interesting IMO. It's not definitive but it at least it provides explanations.

xyzzyz 5y ago
> It's because economics is seen as a science but ignores (not completely) human behavior. That does not describe what economics has looked like for a few decades already. These days, it’s all about human behavior. Just look at the sample of newest papers collected at NBER: https://www.nber.org/papers?page=1&perPage=50&sortBy=public_date#listing-77041 https://www.nber.org/papers?page=1&perPage=50&sortBy=public_... If you look at these, it should be clear that most of published economics these days is basically social science done using quantitative methods. The homo economicus has always been a straw man, but these days it is laughably so.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You can't test economic theories with the scientific method because there is simply no way to create a market vacuum to test. The scientific method doesn't require laboratory controls; statistically controlled experiments are just as consistent with the scientific method. Now, there are branches of economics which are, more of less overtly, not empirical science but essentially theology, the Austrian school being the most well-known, overt example, and they and their practitioners tend not to be distinguished from those of empirical economics when covered by the mainstream media...

B-Con 5y ago

I think of economics as having the classic two sides of theory and practice, but with the quirk that the practice is grossly inefficient because it's a dynamic feedback system based on itself. Engineering takes theoretical principles and pits them into practice. Here's what the free body diagram of a structure might be, but how do you ensure it stays up with abnormal conditions and a client who's going the extra mile to cut costs? Imagine if in engineering, constants changed the more precisely they were measured. pi is different in the USA because China measured it more precisely yesterday. Or if weather patterns changed to exploit the weaknesses of a building to maximize damage. I don't think econ is theoretically irrational, it's just that the application in the public eye is seldom isolated to simple, static systems. When applied to simple systems, I think econ is quite reasonable and makes accurate predictions.