They should, though, or they aren't being good economists. The correct application of numerical analysis is just as important as the analysis itself.Originally Posted by Loki
Let us poll them and ask.
They should, though, or they aren't being good economists. The correct application of numerical analysis is just as important as the analysis itself.
Let us poll them and ask.
That's not how you get into grad school, that's not how you get out of grad school, and it's not how you get most relevant jobs after grad school.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ah, so you're a Political Actuarial?
You're very depressing. I'm going to go take some Xanax now.
Not at all. Economic analysis isn't confined to the narrow range of an actuary. All I'm saying is that you can't just apply some economic theory or principle to real life without considering the environment.
As a simple example, if you apply the mechanism of US monetary easing and (think about) expected results, you must also take into account that the US dollar is a world reserve currency and thus consider game theory -- how will other countries react? You cannot simply state the effects of an economic policy on an isolated hypothetical country when discussing *real* countries. That's a good way to write articles in the New York times and mislead the American people, though.
Last edited by agamemnus; 10-26-2012 at 06:21 AM.
So you're a Political AND Behavioral Economist? As well as a Monetarist?
I don't think you know what most of those labels mean...
Hope is the denial of reality
I was egging aggie to share his Econ degree specialty, or his minor, to understand his pov better and where he's coming from.
Theory and analysis, applied principles, currency and central banking....and 'real life environments' between countries....there's a lot going on there. And all of it can be used by economists with a political bend to refute studies, claim the data was too broad/narrow, skewed in some way or other, drew wrong conclusions, blah blah. Economic Science might use some scientific methods, but it's a soft science with an Art component and human interpretations.
edit for an example: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jud...ion-2012-10-26
Last edited by GGT; 10-28-2012 at 03:35 AM.
International business, GGT.
You're not going to find many conclusive single studies in any field. It's easy to dismiss the results of one study for theoretical/methodological/data reasons. It's much harder to dismiss a consistent stream of studies that have a similar result. You have a very simplistic understanding of how any science works, including the natural sciences.I was egging aggie to share his Econ degree specialty, or his minor, to understand his pov better and where he's coming from.
Theory and analysis, applied principles, currency and central banking....and 'real life environments' between countries....there's a lot going on there. And all of it can be used by economists with a political bend to refute studies, claim the data was too broad/narrow, skewed in some way or other, drew wrong conclusions, blah blah. Economic Science might use some scientific methods, but it's a soft science with an Art component and human interpretations.
edit for an example: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jud...ion-2012-10-26
Hope is the denial of reality
Only global warming comes to mind, Loki. The results of economics studies, at least for the general TV-viewing populace, are muddled, I think.
My point is that Economic Science is just as malleable/fallible as Medical Science, because of the human variables that can't be totally controlled. A hard science like chemistry or physics can account for the human errors/manipulations; those facts are facts.
If it's much harder to dismiss data with a consistent stream of results....then we wouldn't have economists disagreeing with other economists about what's a recession or depression, if they're all the same or different, and what defines growth or a recovery. Like the article I linked.
Well, since you're suggesting polls of economists, because they're all over the map and inconsistent.....maybe the problem isn't the tv-viewing or internet-reading populace?
I doubt the general TV-viewing populace reads Econometrica.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sounds like an easy read.
And evolution is just a theory too, right? Because last I checked, we don't have much control over non-human organisms either (other than mice I suppose).
You prove once again that you have absolutely no idea what economics is about. Hint: arbitrary thresholds that measure the strength of the economy are not it.If it's much harder to dismiss data with a consistent stream of results....then we wouldn't have economists disagreeing with other economists about what's a recession or depression, if they're all the same or different, and what defines growth or a recovery. Like the article I linked.
It would help if people stopped assuming that Economics is the crap that gets written in the WSJ and NY Times.
Hope is the denial of reality
If the goal is to have "better informed" economic policy (as stated in the OP)....then wouldn't you want "better informed" voters, including the tv-viewing and internet-surfing public?
Print newspapers are all but extinct, and people get their information digitally now. Sometimes that means tangentially, with news headlines that force the reader to choose between entertainment or 'hard' news. And they want it in small, easily digestible bites. Recall that's how USA Today got it's foothold.
Correct me if I'm wrong, aggie, but it seems you're wanting a reputable/reliable/professional group of economists who can make headline news that meets both academic/professional economist standards + gives the public the facts they need. If so, that's a pretty tall order.
Good luck with that. It takes me weeks to get pretty smart undergrads to understand the very basics of a regression (just what it means, not even how it's done). Teaching them to understand a study that doesn't use state-of-the-art methods would take half a dozen courses. Now apply that to the general public, which is neither as smart nor as committed to academic work.
Enjoy: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...e-1.x/issuetoc
Hope is the denial of reality
Economics is a huge field with many sub-fields. My main point is that it's a soft science, because it can't ignore Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, or other human behavioral influences.
Where would you draw the line, then? Even The Economist has gotten flak lately, for its seemingly-biased opinions. News Flash: we live in The Information Age, and The Digital Age. We also live in the Think Tank era, where academic economists try to make their living by conducting polls/surveys, data mining, analyzing, concluding, predicting, advising.It would help if people stopped assuming that Economics is the crap that gets written in the WSJ and NY Times.
These academic and professional economists have some 'splaining to do. They were early with party invitations, plenty of spiked kool-aid and roller-coaster rides to the top. But once the ride hit the bottom, and the Bubble machine burst, and nearly everyone puked....they're fighting amongst themselves. They can't explain how to end the hang-over economy in logical terms. Just more priming the pump, asset inflation, drill baby drill, exuberance as rational....no matter who's behind the curtain.
That just supports my point. Economic Science is similar to Medical Science. Biggest difference being that most "regular" people don't have an incentive to read sophisticated economic theory "studies"....but they DO have an incentive to read studies from Lancet, AJM, CDC, NIH. It's personal, and impacts their lives directly.
People who are busy trying to stay alive, and find solutions to their health needs, are more likely to search for factual Medical Science information. They'll take that to their physicians and engage in mutual human decision making. Only after they're successful in doing that can they become educated "consumer economists", and demand more from the professionals.
And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.Economics is a huge field with many sub-fields. My main point is that it's a soft science, because it can't ignore Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, or other human behavioral influences.
Newsflash: anything that's not peer-reviewed isn't "economics". The Economist doesn't do economics; it does policy.Where would you draw the line, then? Even The Economist has gotten flak lately, for its seemingly-biased opinions. News Flash: we live in The Information Age, and The Digital Age. We also live in the Think Tank era, where academic economists try to make their living by conducting polls/surveys, data mining, analyzing, concluding, predicting, advising.
It's not their job. And once again, you're talking out of your behind. A vast majority of economists fight over methods, not the policy-oriented stuff that the Krugmans of the world partake it.These academic and professional economists have some 'splaining to do. They were early with party invitations, plenty of spiked kool-aid and roller-coaster rides to the top. But once the ride hit the bottom, and the Bubble machine burst, and nearly everyone puked....they're fighting amongst themselves. They can't explain how to end the hang-over economy in logical terms. Just more priming the pump, asset inflation, drill baby drill, exuberance as rational....no matter who's behind the curtain.
Then stop talking BS about a field that you've never read a single substantive piece of research in.
Hope is the denial of reality
Hey, at least physics gave us the bomb and MAD and all that jazz, it's not like politicians enabling and following economists would lead to untold ruin, global threats and the deaths of thousands
Oh
I see what you mean
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
So you're a Global Economist, and know that includes political economics, behavioral economics, and consumer economics. Might as well call yourself an international realtor, knowing that all Real Estate is local. Location, location, location.
Economists have varying opinions about Real Estate and the Housing Bubble, and its relationship to the Great Recession and its recovery. I think those "professionals" are divorced from the real economy, because they've been living (for the most part) as dependents of an academic and/or political economy. Either as tenured professors, or entrenched in corporate favoritism, or political connections.
What do you think?
Math isn't a soft science.
The Economist covers peer-reviewed international studies. Of course, it depends on which section you choose to read, to find the links between economics and policy.Newsflash: anything that's not peer-reviewed isn't "economics". The Economist doesn't do economics; it does policy.
Then feel free to explain "the job" of an economist. Oh wait, you can't. At least not until you figure out what type of economist they are. The policy-oriented "stuff" includes methodology, and vice versa.It's not their job.And once again, you're talking out of your behind. A vast majority of economists fight over methods, not the policy-oriented stuff that the Krugmans of the world partake it.
Then stop talking BS about a field that you've never read a single substantive piece of research in.
(A) Unemployment, (B) nodding your head, or (C) confusing people so much with numbers that they just keep giving you money to keep doing it!
I'll tell you once you tell me the difference between physics and engineering, or biology and epidemiology.
A vast majority of economists do micro.
Hope is the denial of reality
What are you trying to prove here? Physics is the study of natural laws, and engineering is the application side.
That is not the point GGT was making. If economics, which in our current day system it must, must draw from the data of soft sciences, then it in turn gains that taint, I guess you can say. Economicst to make themselves pure, tend to try to create homo economicus, which operates on some very basic axioms. However, in the real world to create a theory with strong predictive power, which is the metric to weigh any economic theory, it is needed to take into account the research in human behavior of the soft sciences. When you do this to create more accurate theories you gain the problem of all soft sciences. That is the current state of economics.And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.
When looking at homo economicus, economics is pure, when looking at more detailed explantory power there are elements of soft sciences in economics. I think GGT statement is defendable.
On your analogy with math. That's simply not true. Math doesn't care about physics, if we coincidentally are helpful so be it. We are more interested in understanding logical systems and their conclusion, which includes the axioms that govern our physical reality. I always view physics just a subset of logical mathematical thinking. More to the point mathematics, like most men, is almost always hard, and it's one hard science borrowing from another. There is no "this data is unrepeatable/unreproducable and therefore the information it tells us isn't as reliable" that can very well be true in psychology.And physics can't ignore math, therefore it's a soft science.
I take it you also believe that biology is not a science? Nor pretty much anything but physics and chemistry (certainly not climatology!)?
Let me ask you, does smoking cause cancer? Does radiation cause cancer? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?
Hope is the denial of reality
I said it was a soft science, and yes they are inferior to hard sciences. I still take them seriously just not as strongly.Let me ask you, does smoking cause cancer? Does radiation cause cancer? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?
So you don't take the claim about smoking as seriously? How about chemicals in drinking water or in produce?
Hope is the denial of reality
Epic pattern-recognition fail.
Let's try again, pick the odd one out:
Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, Politics, Mathematics
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yeah, economics is not a real science because it's too similar to other fields that are assumed off the bat to not be scientific. And if I a priori define all countries whose name start with S as crapholes, then we can safely conclude that Sweden is a craphole simply by merit of being a country that begins with an S.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote