I've actually studied economics in college, and while there may be a few interesting points that can be gleaned from it, economics 'on the whole' in its modern incarnations is basically just a shakey and nonsensical social science in the same vain as "gender studies" or "womyn's studies" when it comes to being used as a means understanding reality, for a variety of reasons:

1. Professional economists themselves don't actually claim to be able to make predictions with accuracy anymore than meteorologists do since just like every vein of social science, it deals with chaotic systems - if a weatherman told you he had invented the 'perfect system' which allowed him to predict exactly what the weather would be 100% of the time, he'd be written of as a crank, so a fool who's read a book or two about "Austrian economics" or "Keynesian economics" and claims to be able to be able to accurately predict how an economy will be have 100% of the time is every bit as much of a crank.

A lot of what passes for 'economics' is right up there with some Kevin Trudeau infomercial scam or shady self-help book a la "The Law of Attraction", to the point that planing your life and career choices around a horoscope or a fortune cookie would be a safer bet.

2. In reality, actual entrepreneurs and financially successful people don't plan their lives around some silly economics forecast on the TV - they understand how to actually take educated risks and adapt to the situations on the ground, rather than just "pick a safe bet" like "derp, STEM degrees, derp".

That's basically the difference between how a professional gambler thinks and acts, versus the average Joe who goes to Vegas and winds up broke - the average Joe doesn't learn how to actually think, strategise, and take risks based on the situations on the ground, they just "pick what someone told them is a safe bet" because it gives them a false sense of security.

3. As mentioned above, in practice, economic theories never actually play out in any real-life situation like they theoretically would on paper, which is why it would more or less be akin to someone reading a freshman level sociology course and thinking that they'd actually understanding how manage a group of soldiers as a military commander.

The reality is that, for most of human history, people didn't have the luxury of fiat currencies, economic 'forecasts', yada yada = they had to trade and barter, get by with their wits, and be mindful of the situations around them, rather than just memorize some little piece of economic 'advise', and pull their minds completely out of the present while just running it as a little 'script' in the back of their head that saves them the trouble of having to actually pay attention to what's going on around them, or use any common sense.

Truth is, in any real world situations, there are too many diverse variables and factors; the guy with the "better resume" might not get hired over the next guy because guy #2 happens to be a fan of the same football team as the boss.

There are also stories of waiters who worked their way up into fancy restaurants frequented by rich people making more money from their tips than the guy with the master's in chemistry is at his desk job.

So the truth is that other than simplistic, rudimentary principles such as "don't be lazy if you want a good job" - any generic, "one size fits all" piece of "specific advice" which doesn't require a person to use any actual judgment and adapt to the actual circumstances in front of their face doesn't really work;

Hell in "person A's" specific life and circumstances, there might be more lucrative in pursuing a career as a barber than in pursuing a degree; and in actual practice, there's really no way of knowing with certainty that the football team you were a fan of didn't play more role in getting you hired at an interview than whatever credentials you had listed on your boring resume.

Views: 46

Replies to This Discussion

I didn't read past your first paragraph cause honestly your writing gives me a headache.

That being said, I've always called economics the philosophy of business. It deals with ideals and thought exercises rather than anything concrete.

That being said, I've always called economics the philosophy of business. It deals with ideals and thought exercises rather than anything concrete.

Fair enough, I agree on that, on the whole it's too abstract and whimiscal just like other social sciences; reading an entry-level book on psychology or sociology which mainly just deals with abstract theories wouldn't lend itself to being translated into practical or real-world applications, so why economics is the one 'social science' which seems to get a pass and viewed so 'esteemedly' doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

"reading an entry-level book on psychology or sociology which mainly just deals with abstract theories wouldn't lend itself to being translated into practical or real-world applications"

a) There's a big difference between reading an entry-level book on any topic and studying that topic in depth full-time for several years.

b) Nonetheless I can think of plenty of abstract psychological, sociological, economic (etc.) theories that can 1. be understood by reading an entry-level book and b) can be translated into real-life applications. Can't you?

There's a big difference between reading an entry-level book on any topic and studying that topic in depth full-time for several years.

Well, yeah, but you could say this about anything. There's a difference between reading a book on horoscopes, and studying horoscope theories for years and years...

But if the theory itself, or what it purports to be able to do is flawed from the get-go, then studying it more isn't going to make it any less flawed.

Correct. But you haven't presented any evidence showing that sociology, psychology, economics (etc.) are flawed practices; or at least any more flawed than other fields or practices.

I explained above why they are far more sketchy than 'hard science' for example - because they deal with 'chaotic systems' which can't be tightly controlled or predicted like a simple physics equation.

So any theory claiming to be the 'be all, end all' explanation by definition would be hokus pokus, as much as a weatherman claiming he can accurately predict how the weather will be 100% of the time.

No you explained why you believe they are sketchy but that belief is rooted in a misunderstanding of what economists study and what they claim they can do. It's like you're dismissing the field of law as a whole because of Judge Judy, or the field of journalism as a whole because of Maury Povich.

Well to some degree yes I suppose, I'm referring more to 'armchair' economics as I see it referenced and deified by the average follower of economics, and less of a literal condemnation of economics as a whole.


Much like 'pop psychology', however my impression is that 'pop economics' tends to be viewed as fairly credible, and that some people often naively plan their lives and careers around shady pop economics advice.

So to some degree, I just see 'pop economics' as just a modern incarnation of fortune telling or consulting with psychics wrapped up in an obfuscatory veil of big words and quasi-intellectual jargon to make it sound more 'realistic' and believable.

I also suspect that there's a fair amount of intentional bias and state propaganda wrapped up in economics mythology, with it often designed to intentionally persuade people to pursue careers or financial decisions that benefit or service the state and major corporations, with the use of shady myths and promises of 'financial security'.

But as I mentioned, in reality there are far too many variables in any real-life situation for a simplistic myth about a 'safe degree' path or this or that to be blindly followed - and successful entrepreneurs didn't just blindly follow a trendy piece of advice from some career counselor or economics blog, they had to actually learn how to think and adapt to the actual circumstances in front of them and make daily decisions,

Fair enough. But if your point is that pop economics shouldn't be valued as highly as you believe it is, you should probably title your thread differently.

Not tightly controlled or predictable - like quantum mechanics? 


Just because something isn't predictable at the smallest (quantum) level, doesn't mean that it isn't predictable at the large, macro level.  I can't tell you the speed and position of an electron, but I can tell you how the molecule that atom is part of reacts.  I can't tell you if Joe's Widget Shack will be fail, but I can predict that large tax increases reduce consumer spending.

Or how about this, from my area of expertise: aerodynamics.  I can design an airplane that flies safely and well using Bernoulli's Equation.  But Bernoulli's equation is actually a very poor model of how air actually behaves.  So why is it so useful?  Because it is an excellent predictor of the results of the fluid behavior at the high level.  It will give you the correct answer +/- 15%.  I have better tools that will give you the correct answer +/- 5%, but they take 10x or more the work and math.  And for 100x the time and effort I can give the answer +/- 2%.  But I can never predict the answer perfectly.

And air molecules don't make decisions like people, they follow the rules.

Economics cannot predict things perfectly because of complexity and non-deterministic factors. i.e. Chaos.  But if it gives more useful answers than random guessing then it has value.

 

Not just more useful answers; more educated, informed answers.

You can ask me what's wrong with you or you can ask your doctor. Both of us are essentially guessing, but one of us has a sound foundation from which he can make that guess and far better chances of being right. That's the value, IMO.

(PS: Not you you. You know what I mean.)

RSS

Latest Activity

DHO updated their profile
10 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
"You know I really don't know what you're trying to prove here Shane. But I think you might have missed a dose this morning man. You seem to be itching to just nail someone for a comma being out of place or something so you can celebrate…"
20 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to David R.'s discussion Transgender Persons in the Military in the group The Great Debate
"Dude seriously? What is the title of this discussion? Or, I see what you're doing...I shouldn't say bill, I should say policy. Thanks for pointing out my folly."
22 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Sir's discussion Transgenderism and optical illusion in the group The Great Debate
"I'll read the article later when I have a break at work, but already you could simply say: Is it more transgender that have schizophrenia or is it more schizophrenics who are transgender? This looks like either it's already being spun to…"
24 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Proverbs 18:24 in the group Christian Men
"Compose noun "Create" synonym "Invent" The Hebrews did not invent a good chunk of Proverbs. They transcribed them from oral traditions."
27 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
""Pretty close to the exact wording" Useless."
33 minutes ago
Shane replied to David R.'s discussion Transgender Persons in the Military in the group The Great Debate
"What bill?"
33 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
"Since PH asked the question, don't you think he should be the one to open it up. Takes 2 minutes on google to get pretty close to the exact wording that Mueller has given really. So I'm not real sure what you're going to do when…"
36 minutes ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service