4 ms·

If money only exists in the mind of people, how could there truly ever be a "science" of it? It strikes me, from a somewhat cynical point of view, that "eco

If money only exists in the mind of people, how could there truly ever be a "science" of it? It strikes me, from a somewhat cynical point of view, that "economics" is a somewhat confused and lower resolution study of "psychology," which I think offers a the workable explanation for your final sentence.

mattnewton 4y ago
> economics" is a somewhat confused and lower resolution study of "psychology," Maybe sociology, since money matter because it can be exchanged between people, but personally I don't think you'd be wrong for thinking about economics as a narrow but important branch of sociology/psychology, in the same way you might think of biology as a narrow but important branch of chemistry and physics.
plsbenice34 4y ago
It's like game theory. Once you set rules and laws you can mathematically model and analyse players' behaviour in reaction to those incentives. Assuming players follow a selfish strategy can be a useful approximation of the psychology sometimes. Since it's 'just made up' societies can modify the rules.
felix318 4y ago
Numbers also only exist in our minds but that doesn't make mathematics a branch of psychology. There is a rational side to economics because money can be measured and the measurements are reliable. The unpredictable side of economics is of course the behaviour of the various economical agents, and regarding this I think economics is closer to astrology than to psychology.
adamsmith143 4y ago
Economics, flawed as it is, was never the science of money but the science of markets.
- jrm4 4y ago
  But markets are just as made up as money? I fail to see the difference.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    More the study of human behavior under the environmental conditions of markets, or groups within firms. You can study animal behavior in the environment of a zoo, as opposed to say, a savannah or jungle.
  - throwanident 4y ago
    If the market is a distributed algorithm, then money is a representation of some of its free variables. Both are made up in the sense that the algorithm itself can be modified by regulation or social convention. There's even a field of economics dedicated to finding out how to engineer such an algorithm (a mechanism) to satisfy a given objective. But if the algorithm is more or less stable, then it makes more sense to study it rather than just parts of its state. That's the difference.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
> how could there truly ever be a "science" of it? There isn't. There's a practice and set of local "crafts pertaining to". That's why it's econom(ics). [-ikos, -ique] Like electronics, acoustics, politics... As opposed to being econom(ology), a more systematic science [-logy (logos)] being a branch of knowledge. Even hardcore economists aren't keen to raise it to the level of a "science".
- russellbeattie 4y ago
  A for effort, but I'm going to have to go with a C- on actual etymology. Unless mathematics and physics aren't considered branches of knowledge. -ic/ics mostly just means "pertaining to" (minus the craft bit) and like all things in the English language, is never a hard and fast rule.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    I'll concede physics, and settle for the C grade for my Etymonics. But unless you're arguing for the possibility of rigorous economics (I hope not) the spirit of my point is the fault-line between praxis and what is broadly universalisable. Is "political science" real? (I personally think there's a case), but why did that have to arise besides politics? I studied electronics and am happy to report, compared to its foundation in physics, it's an ever changing craft of black magic and tricks you can do with silicon and electrons. Need proof? Where is the craft of thermionics today? As for economics, I don't really know. Some days I have hope in its use. Other days I think its very conceit is the root cause of much it sets out to solve.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jrm4 4y ago
That's exactly correct. It cannot much be a science.

mattnewton 4y ago

> economics" is a somewhat confused and lower resolution study of "psychology," Maybe sociology, since money matter because it can be exchanged between people, but personally I don't think you'd be wrong for thinking about economics as a narrow but important branch of sociology/psychology, in the same way you might think of biology as a narrow but important branch of chemistry and physics.

plsbenice34 4y ago

It's like game theory. Once you set rules and laws you can mathematically model and analyse players' behaviour in reaction to those incentives. Assuming players follow a selfish strategy can be a useful approximation of the psychology sometimes. Since it's 'just made up' societies can modify the rules.

felix318 4y ago

Numbers also only exist in our minds but that doesn't make mathematics a branch of psychology. There is a rational side to economics because money can be measured and the measurements are reliable. The unpredictable side of economics is of course the behaviour of the various economical agents, and regarding this I think economics is closer to astrology than to psychology.

adamsmith143 4y ago

Economics, flawed as it is, was never the science of money but the science of markets.

jrm4 4y ago
But markets are just as made up as money? I fail to see the difference.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  More the study of human behavior under the environmental conditions of markets, or groups within firms. You can study animal behavior in the environment of a zoo, as opposed to say, a savannah or jungle.
- throwanident 4y ago
  If the market is a distributed algorithm, then money is a representation of some of its free variables. Both are made up in the sense that the algorithm itself can be modified by regulation or social convention. There's even a field of economics dedicated to finding out how to engineer such an algorithm (a mechanism) to satisfy a given objective. But if the algorithm is more or less stable, then it makes more sense to study it rather than just parts of its state. That's the difference.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> how could there truly ever be a "science" of it? There isn't. There's a practice and set of local "crafts pertaining to". That's why it's econom(ics). [-ikos, -ique] Like electronics, acoustics, politics... As opposed to being econom(ology), a more systematic science [-logy (logos)] being a branch of knowledge. Even hardcore economists aren't keen to raise it to the level of a "science".

russellbeattie 4y ago
A for effort, but I'm going to have to go with a C- on actual etymology. Unless mathematics and physics aren't considered branches of knowledge. -ic/ics mostly just means "pertaining to" (minus the craft bit) and like all things in the English language, is never a hard and fast rule.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I'll concede physics, and settle for the C grade for my Etymonics. But unless you're arguing for the possibility of rigorous economics (I hope not) the spirit of my point is the fault-line between praxis and what is broadly universalisable. Is "political science" real? (I personally think there's a case), but why did that have to arise besides politics? I studied electronics and am happy to report, compared to its foundation in physics, it's an ever changing craft of black magic and tricks you can do with silicon and electrons. Need proof? Where is the craft of thermionics today? As for economics, I don't really know. Some days I have hope in its use. Other days I think its very conceit is the root cause of much it sets out to solve.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jrm4 4y ago

That's exactly correct. It cannot much be a science.