Economics?

curious · Apr 23, 2009

I know I've sounded really down on economists and their whole field, but I'm really not. I think that economics is one of the most complex fields of study around, and as a subject it is still in its infancy. Because it is very mathematical, it tends to look more precise and scientific than it really is.

It's funny, some people think that the studying climate is complex, but it really can't come close to economics.

What stage of deveolment is the field really in? I'm tempted to say it is in the same point of development as medicine in the 1800's, really pretty primitive, but getting closer to a breakthrough.

The Parakeet · Apr 24, 2009

The problem is that it's impossible to really tell any results. Everything is up to interpretation. Just look at the threads here. Two people can look at the exact same results and come up with different answers. I'm not sure if that will ever change. The social science aspect just adds too many problems. It could be in its infancy or in the final stage. Who knows?

There are also a number of fairly unintuitive things. If you don't have a mind for economics, then it just seems insane on the first time through.

deanhills · Apr 26, 2009

curious said:
I know I've sounded really down on economists and their whole field, but I'm really not. I think that economics is one of the most complex fields of study around, and as a subject it is still in its infancy. Because it is very mathematical, it tends to look more precise and scientific than it really is.

It's funny, some people think that the studying climate is complex, but it really can't come close to economics.

What stage of deveolment is the field really in? I'm tempted to say it is in the same point of development as medicine in the 1800's, really pretty primitive, but getting closer to a breakthrough.

I really think that economics are complicated because so much information is less than transparent and artfully hidden. We have too many large corporations and banks as well, so one really needs a course in economics to be able to read the fancy financial statements and even with that you can still go wrong. For me a lie is not only a false statement but when a portion of a statement is omitted. In fact that is a worse lie, as knowledge is hidden. Strictly speaking we have to have full and open information on all companies that are listed on the stock exchanges, but in reality we don't. Lots of the information is either hidden, omitted or distorted in an artful way on a "need to know" basis.

curious · Apr 26, 2009

deanhills said:
I really think that economics are complicated because so much information is less than transparent and artfully hidden. We have too many large corporations and banks as well, so one really needs a course in economics to be able to read the fancy financial statements and even with that you can still go wrong. For me a lie is not only a false statement but when a portion of a statement is omitted. In fact that is a worse lie, as knowledge is hidden. Strictly speaking we have to have full and open information on all companies that are listed on the stock exchanges, but in reality we don't. Lots of the information is either hidden, omitted or distorted in an artful way on a "need to know" basis.

Even with crystal clear information, there are problems. Lacking an alternate universe or two in which to conduct experiments, it is very difficult to tell what cause and effect are. One of the basic principles is that it assumes a 'rational man'. Well, lots of economic decisions aren't rational (I'll refrain from harping again on the Republicans reliance on tax cuts as a cure for everything). Someone has a fight with his wife and goes out and buys a new car he can't afford. A buyer for a major company has the flu and doesn't get anywhere near the besr price for a major commodity contract. Someone bets on a horse that's paying 100 to 1 because she likes the name and it comes in. And things like that happen on a macroeconomic scale, too. And there is no way to factor all that in. So it's tough.

deanhills · Apr 28, 2009

curious said:
Even with crystal clear information, there are problems. Lacking an alternate universe or two in which to conduct experiments, it is very difficult to tell what cause and effect are. One of the basic principles is that it assumes a 'rational man'. Well, lots of economic decisions aren't rational (I'll refrain from harping again on the Republicans reliance on tax cuts as a cure for everything). Someone has a fight with his wife and goes out and buys a new car he can't afford. A buyer for a major company has the flu and doesn't get anywhere near the besr price for a major commodity contract. Someone bets on a horse that's paying 100 to 1 because she likes the name and it comes in. And things like that happen on a macroeconomic scale, too. And there is no way to factor all that in. So it's tough.

I like the way you put it about economic decisions not being rational. I agree completely with that. Also that they are taken more with short-term in mind, hoping that the future will take care of it. As I wonder whether anyone is really and truly feeling the 1.2-trillion dollar debt.

curious · Apr 30, 2009

I majored in math, so I'm a person who doesn't like ambiguity. I thought physics was ambiguous. I mena, what's with this particle in the box that isn't in the box? So for me, economics is almost nightmarish. The idea of doing math predicting what people will do? Has anybody read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov?

deanhills · Apr 30, 2009

curious said:
I majored in math, so I'm a person who doesn't like ambiguity. I thought physics was ambiguous. I mena, what's with this particle in the box that isn't in the box? So for me, economics is almost nightmarish. The idea of doing math predicting what people will do? Has anybody read the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov?

I looked him up. Quite a guy with some interesting views. Was there a specific book/essagy that he wrote on predicting people behaviour?

curious · May 1, 2009

deanhills said:
I looked him up. Quite a guy with some interesting views. Was there a specific book/essagy that he wrote on predicting people behaviour?

Isaac Asimov was a physicist who wrote science fiction. He wrote book called 'Foundation', set in some time in the future when the human race had colonized most of the galaxy. In it, a mathematician named Hari Seldon develops a field of study called psychohistory, and that study led him to believe the galaxy was in danger, so he set up the Foundation to manipulate the future in order to save it. But even he couldn't predict everything, and a wild card in the form of one person totally disrupts his plans.

So, no matter how much control and power and predictive ability you have, you can't rule out a wild card, you can't ever be certain.

And the study of economics is in its infancy, so there are a lot more wild cards than in Asimov's fantasy world.

deanhills · May 2, 2009

curious said:
Isaac Asimov was a physicist who wrote science fiction. He wrote book called 'Foundation', set in some time in the future when the human race had colonized most of the galaxy. In it, a mathematician named Hari Seldon develops a field of study called psychohistory, and that study led him to believe the galaxy was in danger, so he set up the Foundation to manipulate the future in order to save it. But even he couldn't predict everything, and a wild card in the form of one person totally disrupts his plans.

So, no matter how much control and power and predictive ability you have, you can't rule out a wild card, you can't ever be certain.

And the study of economics is in its infancy, so there are a lot more wild cards than in Asimov's fantasy world.

I've been watching a lot of TV movies lately, and there seem to be so many of them with heroes who have the ability to see the future and act on it in the present jumping into the future and back all the time. Sort of an interesting concept that one can change what is going to happen in the future in the present, by having knowledge of the future, but then that probably changes the future?

curious · May 2, 2009

Yeah, there is a whole time travel dilemma. If you go back in time and make a change, the ramifications can be immense. You could, in fact, keep your parents from meeting or from being in the same city the night you were conceived, and therefor eliminate yourself. But, if you were never born, how could you travel back in time to make the change that kept you from being born?

The Parakeet · May 3, 2009

"You've Created a Time Paradox!"

deanhills · May 4, 2009

Trapped in a time bubble?

curious · Jun 21, 2009

Better than being trapped in a housing bubble!

Economics?

Similar threads