Is economics a science, or just a dinner-party? ....

Thrugelmir

atush wrote: »

I was a biologist- what do i know lol.

How to be productive?

tomterm8

the_flying_pig wrote: »

Go on then, define 'science', and explain in a sentence why [say] the following are/aren't sciences:

Chemistry.
Maths.
Economics.
History.

Science is any discipline where the prime way of learning is through generating hypothesis, and then testing them via reproducible experiments.

So, Chemistry is the only science on your list.

This doesn't mean the other subjects are not valid, or important, but they are not sciences. Ironically, there are disciplines within Economics that are sciences, because you can carry out experiments, but as a whole, this is not the case.

Generali

TruckerT wrote: »

Why? Because worldwide there are thousands and thousands of expensively educated and highly paid professional economists whose job is precisely to predict such events as a global banking collapse!

Incidentally, no bank has yet been convicted of fraud, and my own prediction is that it will never happen

TruckerT

Economics is an art currently and I would say it is at a level equivalent to the understanding of electricity in the C18th. Back then, people knew that if you wired up a frog to a 'battery' its legs would convulse and that was the total extent of the understanding AIUI.

Economics is really the study of human interaction. After 235 years of economics (Adam Smith's An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was published in 1776) it is only recently that economists have even realised that. The first behavioural study in economics was published in 1968 and it's only really in the C21st that it's been taken seriously.

There's an excellent pair of books called Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan that explain many limitations of economics and economists. One of Taleb's genius insights is Black Swans, a much abused and misused idea.

The idea of a black swan can be explained thusly. In the early C18th, all swans were white, one of the defining characteristics of swans as far as Europeans were concerned was that they were white.

Then Cptn Cook rocked up to Aus and found that swans could also be black. Prior to white people 'discovering' Australia*, there was no way for any person** to know that swans could be anything other than white. 'Everyone'*** knew that swans were white until suddenly one day they weren't.

The same principle can be applied to economics. There are too many unknown unknowns out there to be able to predict the future with any certainty. You'd know if anyone had economics licked because they'd make a billion squillion gazzillion quid in a few months of trading.

Banks are being taken to court for defrauding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US. They are also being sued for using 'robo-signers' (Google it). That is much to the credit of the US Government and legal system. UK bankers will never see the inside of a courtroom let alone a prison because they share power with Cameron and Blair. The system is too cosy in the UK. You guys should lynch Sir Fred Goodwin. Instead the legal system even prevented the press from calling him a banker!!!



*Clearly a country doesn't exist until a white person sees it, preferably an Englishman.
**For 'person' read white person. Dark brown people got on perfectly well for about 20,000 years before white people showed up and killed them. In breaks in between killing dark brown people, white people did some bird watching and discovered swans were black in Australia as well as the indigenous population.
***For 'everyone' read 'white people'.

atush

How to be productive?

Well I was a bit productive in both my research and I made 3 boys all in further education ;-) And I built a house, well 2 really.

I am with tomterm on this, I don't consider economics in the main to be a science.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

UK bankers will never see the inside of a courtroom let alone a prison because they share power with Cameron and Blair.

Many of the indited executives of RBS, HSBC and Barclays appear to work in the US operation.

the_flying_pig

tomterm8 wrote: »

Science is any discipline where the prime way of learning is through generating hypothesis, and then testing them via reproducible experiments.

So, Chemistry is the only science on your list.

This doesn't mean the other subjects are not valid, or important, but they are not sciences. Ironically, there are disciplines within Economics that are sciences, because you can carry out experiments, but as a whole, this is not the case.

If that's your definition then, yes, economics isn't a science [although in the micro-world experimental economics is a big growth area].

But certainly in the language of academia your definition looks maybe quite close to being restricted to what are sometimes called 'natural sciences', which, of course, economics isn't an example of. In lay speak I suppose 'science' is often a shorthand for this.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many of the indited executives of RBS, HSBC and Barclays appear to work in the US operation.

David Baker, David Jones and Richard Barclay (Northern Rock directors) deliberately under-reported arrears figures. They would have had bigger bonuses as a result.

Fraud is 'gaining pecuniary advantage by deception'. They lied (deceived) and made money (gained pecuniary advantage) to the extent that they have been fined almost £1,000,000 between them. Why did the SFO not prosecute? They should be in prison. Lots of people lost money by owning shares in NRK. This is absolutely not a victimless crime.

White collar criminals get away scott free in the UK. If I had my time again I'd have run a dot com fraud in the UK in 2000.

tomterm8

the_flying_pig wrote: »

If that's your definition then, yes, economics isn't a science [although in the micro-world experimental economics is a big growth area].

But certainly in the language of academia your definition looks maybe quite close to being restricted to what are sometimes called 'natural sciences', which, of course, economics isn't an example of. In lay speak I suppose 'science' is often a shorthand for this.

Lots of people try to claim their discipline is a science for the same reason than lots of people try to claim they are a 'Customer Service Area Assistant Manager', but they are still a shelf stacker to me.

If you can claim your discipline is a science in academia, it often gives you more prestige and (therefore) higher pay.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

David Baker, David Jones and Richard Barclay (Northern Rock directors) deliberately under-reported arrears figures. They would have had bigger bonuses as a result.

Far bigger fish to fry I wonder.

As Granite, NR's SPV. Wasn't owned by NR. But by the Law Debenture Corporation, acting as trustee. Granite’s beneficial ownership is described as follows

"The entire issued share capital of Holdings is held on trust by a professional trust company under the terms of a discretionary trust for the benefit of one or more charities. The professional trust company is not affiliated with the seller".



No evidence uncovered that any charities ever benefited from same.

Conrad

Generali wrote: »

There are too many unknown unknowns out there to be able to predict the future with any certainty.

And this Sir is why economics and the business of prediction will never be a science.

One Human mind has more possible connections than all the atoms in the Universe.

Each of the billions of Human minds in a chaotic manner will input all sorts of new events onto tomorrow, meaning prediction much beyond a few months becomes toss of the coin stuff.

Sure every now and then someone will get a prediction partly on the nose, but in any large chaotic system, on chance alone this will happen.


Most leading economists predicted world famine that would devastate the west by the early 1980's. ALL THIER TRENDS POINTED TO THIS.

So what happened?

What had they missed?

Human ingenuity in the form of the green revolution. Countless books and theories from the 60's 70's and 80's argued 'anyone not believing this is inevitable, is going against all evidence'. They predicted America would fall into a land of rich and poor in civil war by 1980.

Time and again predictions fail (99% fail according to studies by people like Tetlock), because expert economists cannot predict Human ingenuity and interactions.

Thats why these expert predictions portending Chinas dominance over America must be taken with a bucket of salt.

Most experts were CERTAIN that Japan would usurp America by 1990 / 1995. They were just as certain as some of your are that America will once again decline.

These predictions of Americas 'inevitable' decline have been with us for 200 years!

Over and again people make the mistake of trying to predict from CURRENT TRENDS.


NOT CONVINCED?

Did you know there have been more than 100 expert separate consensus predictions we had reached peak oil, going right back to 1897?

Did you know there have been over 5000 articles in the NY Times alone that outlined Americas near term decline going right back to 1924? Even in times of plenty such as the late 50's these articles appeared.

Fools follow expert predictions.