3 ms·

Edit: Economists are the modern first estate: the statistical clerics preaching the benefits of greed. Now with alternative facts! Old title about 200 years cl

Edit: Economists are the modern first estate: the statistical clerics preaching the benefits of greed. Now with alternative facts! Old title about 200 years claim: While the Middle East, Egypt, and Greece contain the longest continuously occupied cities, the nations and people who compromise them changed and lost generational memory over the centuries. And few continuous civilizations survive in any meaningful form for more than 250 years / 10 generations on average.

coldtea 3y ago
>the nations and people who compromise them changed and lost generational memory over the centuries Changed yes. "Lost generational memory" why? If you mean "lost direct memory of 2 or 3 millenia ago" sure.
hospitalJail 3y ago
I've started to think about this too. Economics isnt a science, its an orthodoxy of rules and beliefs. Sure there are some correlations that hit true, but outside a few true-isms, its basically a religion.
- toyg 3y ago
  Economics is a science, but a social one. That means that, as much as they try to stuff it with math, economics remains fundamentally an application of loose sociologic principles, which are themselves extremely debatable. The genius is that that bit of casual math instantly insulate economists from their peers (i.e. historians, sociologists, etc), no matter how bogus such math might be.
  - bandrami 3y ago
    The problem is lots of economists at least seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". I've even seen people sneer "mere heuristics" at suggestions to try that...
    - addcommitpush 3y ago
      It's quite surprising because ever since the "credibility revolution" [0], a major critique of economics is that it focuses too much on issues that are well suited to "validating via observation" as you call it, rather than issues that are actually important. For instance, more looking at the effect of soccer victories on inter-ethnic trust [1], fewer grand theories of development. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution [1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.h...
    - SantalBlush 3y ago
      >seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". The economic literature abounds in observational studies that test economic theories. What are you basing your statement on?
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    It's a question of predictive value. Economics definitely has predictive value. Eg supply and demand, the emergence of money, price elasticity etc. Economies in video games fascinate me, because it's another 'world' where you can see whether some economics principles apply or not. Eg the game Path of Exile doesn't have 'money', but various crafting materials ended up being treated as money by the players. The exchange rates between them are set by supply and demand as well.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    The problem is economists pretend they are a hard science, while their founding works are largely just assertions from randos in the 1600s. There's no scientific basis for any of it, and plenty of economics still stand on the stilts of things like "rational actors" and other handwaves that they use to pretend their terrible toy models can represent reality. They also do things like define market efficiency in circular ways. Even game theory sits on top of the throne of "rational actors", meanwhile human beings are explicitly IRRATIONAL actors. If economics was a functional science, the richest people in the world would be economists. That it isn't is strong evidence that no economics yet has produced strong predictions, which is a rather significant problem for a "science".
robertlagrant 3y ago
> the statistical clerics preaching the benefits of greed You have to define greed very broadly to make this statement true. Broadly enough that you should tell people to discard any negative connotations of the word when interpreting what you're saying. I work for money I can spend; that's greed only in the sense that I choose what I do and I get rewarded for it, as opposed to working to avoid being whipped or killed or sent to Siberia or to hell. Self-interest is so far the best motivation we've come up with.

coldtea 3y ago

>the nations and people who compromise them changed and lost generational memory over the centuries Changed yes. "Lost generational memory" why? If you mean "lost direct memory of 2 or 3 millenia ago" sure.

hospitalJail 3y ago

I've started to think about this too. Economics isnt a science, its an orthodoxy of rules and beliefs. Sure there are some correlations that hit true, but outside a few true-isms, its basically a religion.

toyg 3y ago
Economics is a science, but a social one. That means that, as much as they try to stuff it with math, economics remains fundamentally an application of loose sociologic principles, which are themselves extremely debatable. The genius is that that bit of casual math instantly insulate economists from their peers (i.e. historians, sociologists, etc), no matter how bogus such math might be.
- bandrami 3y ago
  The problem is lots of economists at least seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". I've even seen people sneer "mere heuristics" at suggestions to try that...
  - addcommitpush 3y ago
    It's quite surprising because ever since the "credibility revolution" [0], a major critique of economics is that it focuses too much on issues that are well suited to "validating via observation" as you call it, rather than issues that are actually important. For instance, more looking at the effect of soccer victories on inter-ethnic trust [1], fewer grand theories of development. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility_revolution [1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v110y2020i5p1572-1602.h...
  - SantalBlush 3y ago
    >seem to think that what makes something a science is "using math" rather than "validating or disproving theories via observation". The economic literature abounds in observational studies that test economic theories. What are you basing your statement on?
- Aerroon 3y ago
  It's a question of predictive value. Economics definitely has predictive value. Eg supply and demand, the emergence of money, price elasticity etc. Economies in video games fascinate me, because it's another 'world' where you can see whether some economics principles apply or not. Eg the game Path of Exile doesn't have 'money', but various crafting materials ended up being treated as money by the players. The exchange rates between them are set by supply and demand as well.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  The problem is economists pretend they are a hard science, while their founding works are largely just assertions from randos in the 1600s. There's no scientific basis for any of it, and plenty of economics still stand on the stilts of things like "rational actors" and other handwaves that they use to pretend their terrible toy models can represent reality. They also do things like define market efficiency in circular ways. Even game theory sits on top of the throne of "rational actors", meanwhile human beings are explicitly IRRATIONAL actors. If economics was a functional science, the richest people in the world would be economists. That it isn't is strong evidence that no economics yet has produced strong predictions, which is a rather significant problem for a "science".

robertlagrant 3y ago

> the statistical clerics preaching the benefits of greed You have to define greed very broadly to make this statement true. Broadly enough that you should tell people to discard any negative connotations of the word when interpreting what you're saying. I work for money I can spend; that's greed only in the sense that I choose what I do and I get rewarded for it, as opposed to working to avoid being whipped or killed or sent to Siberia or to hell. Self-interest is so far the best motivation we've come up with.