3 ms·

Hi Mr. Economist. Lots of fancy terms there. Would you care to provide proof that mainstream economics is a Science? What predictions does it make that are fals

Hi Mr. Economist. Lots of fancy terms there. Would you care to provide proof that mainstream economics is a Science? What predictions does it make that are falsifiable? How can we test and reproduce what it says about the world? For instance, before we started QE it was thought to be a good idea. Now they're changing their mind. Were they wrong before? If so, what was it that we learned now about it so we won't make that mistake again? Are we really accumulating knowledge in this "Science" or are we winging it as we go along? Also answer me this. Physics students can make all sorts of computer simulations that simulate some aspect of reality, like the center of a tornado, or fluid dynamics, or galaxy collisions, etc. And physics students barely have any money! Now my question: Bankers, with all their money, have never been able to get a single simulation of a country going. Where is the computer simulation where we mess with interest rates, minimum wage, QE, etc, and see what happens? Where is it? Where's proof of this great "Science"?

drjesusphd 11y ago
It's starting to be done [1], but by physicists. Among their basic conclusions from their simplified models: - A free market naturally tends toward an exponential distribution of wealth. - When debt is allowed in the model, the rich get richer, even without considering that interest is paid from the poor to the rich. - The U.S. clearly has a two-class structure. [1] http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/ http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/
- pash 11y ago
  Econophysics enjoyed a brief vogue in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but the field has mostly dried up. Much of what the econophysicsts "learned" turned out either to restate things economists already knew (this time in physics-speak) or to be results that were very sensitive to modeling assumptions. But mostly the physicists gave up because they discovered that problems in economics are much harder than problems in physics; everything is a heterogeneous n-body problem with endogenously determined rules governing interactions.
  - innguest 11y ago
    Right, that's why they gave up. 'Cause you know, physicists are known for giving up on hard problems... /s

drjesusphd 11y ago

It's starting to be done [1], but by physicists. Among their basic conclusions from their simplified models: - A free market naturally tends toward an exponential distribution of wealth. - When debt is allowed in the model, the rich get richer, even without considering that interest is paid from the poor to the rich. - The U.S. clearly has a two-class structure. [1] http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/ http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/

pash 11y ago
Econophysics enjoyed a brief vogue in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but the field has mostly dried up. Much of what the econophysicsts "learned" turned out either to restate things economists already knew (this time in physics-speak) or to be results that were very sensitive to modeling assumptions. But mostly the physicists gave up because they discovered that problems in economics are much harder than problems in physics; everything is a heterogeneous n-body problem with endogenously determined rules governing interactions.
- innguest 11y ago
  Right, that's why they gave up. 'Cause you know, physicists are known for giving up on hard problems... /s