Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Economics is pseudo-science

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:49:46 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
https://youtu.be...

Oh I am gonna feast on you newbs on this subject. Where is my spoon and bowl?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 11:24:26 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
The video is less than 2min long but I am peeved by people who think a video or an article is enough for a good OP. Let's start with some premises:

1. Economics deals in money, which does not represent real resources. For instance, economics fails COMPLETELY to address natural resources like forests, topsoil, water quality, air quality, and biodiversity. I could make this list much more exhaustive, suffice to say economics fails to take any natural resources into account.

2. There is way too much disagreement amongst experts in economics. Of course there will always be disagreement in any field, but the magnitude of which it occurs in economics is absurd. Our government is full of politicians who cant agree on even the most basic premises to start on. Is growth good? I could give a plethora of reasoning why it isn't. Is lots of governent intervention desireable or not? The experts just cannot agree on anything.

3. There is no progress like there is in real sciences. Our economy doesn't improve over time and neither do our ideas.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 11:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 11:24:26 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The video is less than 2min long but I am peeved by people who think a video or an article is enough for a good OP. Let's start with some premises:

1. Economics deals in money, which does not represent real resources. For instance, economics fails COMPLETELY to address natural resources like forests, topsoil, water quality, air quality, and biodiversity. I could make this list much more exhaustive, suffice to say economics fails to take any natural resources into account.

You're correct. Especially since we've deviated from the gold standard, economics deals with things entirely superficial. Money only exists because we decided it should.

2. There is way too much disagreement amongst experts in economics. Of course there will always be disagreement in any field, but the magnitude of which it occurs in economics is absurd. Our government is full of politicians who cant agree on even the most basic premises to start on. Is growth good? I could give a plethora of reasoning why it isn't. Is lots of governent intervention desireable or not? The experts just cannot agree on anything.

Economics takes its basis from government action, so the correct economic path is entirely dependent on what type of government rule is in place. Experts have such differing views on economics, specifically, because they have different views on what role the government itself should assume.

3. There is no progress like there is in real sciences. Our economy doesn't improve over time and neither do our ideas.

This is true, to a degree. Progress is stifled by partisan politics, too.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 4:15:23 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
I agree with the post above. The reason economics remains a pseudo science is politics.
The way I see economics, supply and demand is the only real force at play. What governs demand can not ever really be quantified as the variables are as unlimited as human action. It may be possible one day if there is ever a truly free market to collect enough data to learn more about human behavior in this way. But still nearly impossible to predict outcomes accurately. Economics itself will always just be that unpredictable human demand, met by a supply, creating a somewhat predictable quantity demand.
Government regulation creates the situation in economics that is similar to studying physics while the laws are constantly changing.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:52:16 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 10:49:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://youtu.be...

Oh I am gonna feast on you newbs on this subject. Where is my spoon and bowl?

Economics is about human action. If money did not exsist there would still be economics.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Subutai
Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 8:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 10:49:46 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
https://youtu.be...

Oh I am gonna feast on you newbs on this subject. Where is my spoon and bowl?

Economics is not a hard science in the sense that the topics it considers cannot be abstracted from the level of the human or society (although, even in the hard sciences, internal biases still effect how we come up with theories and how we conduct in experiments). Economics is a social science. But that doesn't make it any more invalid than other social sciences like sociology (of course, there's a lot of debate whether sociology actually makes justifiable claims, but that's for another debate).

Unfortunately, economics deals with a lot of conscious and unconscious bias as a result of politics. Economics is a key issue in politics, and thus, economists are often corrupted by thought-influencing ideologies. But that doesn't make the fundamental study of economics invalid. It can still be studied correctly, if done with a little political influence as possible. "Progress" is relative, especially considering that even all of our theories in the hard sciences could be completely wrong. We do have a greater understanding of economics than we did, say, even 200 years ago though.

You are right however that economics should consider resources aside from paper money and investments. Some economists do this, but the practice is not nearly mainstream enough right now.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 6:03:26 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 8:42:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Unfortunately, economics deals with a lot of conscious and unconscious bias as a result of politics. Economics is a key issue in politics, and thus, economists are often corrupted by thought-influencing ideologies.

But the EPI is always right, right?
http://www.epi.org...
https://www.epionline.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 6:17:15 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 8:42:30 PM, Subutai wrote:

I will give a legitimate response, though. ;)

Economics is not a hard science in the sense that the topics it considers cannot be abstracted from the level of the human or society (although, even in the hard sciences, internal biases still affect how we come up with theories and how we conduct in experiments). Economics is a social science. But that doesn't make it any more invalid than other social sciences like sociology (of course, there's a lot of debate whether sociology actually makes justifiable claims, but that's for another debate).

Mhm, that's fair.

Unfortunately, economics deals with a lot of conscious and unconscious bias as a result of politics. Economics is a key issue in politics, and thus, economists are often corrupted by thought-influencing ideologies. But that doesn't make the fundamental study of economics invalid. It can still be studied correctly, if done with a little political influence as possible. "Progress" is relative, especially considering that even all of our theories in the hard sciences could be completely wrong. We do have a greater understanding of economics than we did, say, even 200 years ago though.

Yes, I agree. There is so much literature out there that you simply can't trust. Methodologies in studies are often revealing. But, I think the best thing we can do is continue exploring the science. As you mentioned, we've had progress.

And I would argue that partisan economic studies are beneficial in finding the truth. When you consider the extremes of issues, the polarization often makes it easier to see the middle ground... which is normally where the truth lies. For example, if one side claims raising the minimum wage reduces poverty while the other says it facilitates poverty (ergo, increases it), it begs the question: why does each side make their claim? In studying that, you find it's a trade-off. I use that example because I think, in the economic realm, that is a fairly well-established truth.

Essentially what I'm saying is that we're not in the best scenario because of politics and the division therein, but we can make good use of the conflict, too.

You are right however that economics should consider resources aside from paper money and investments. Some economists do this, but the practice is not nearly mainstream enough right now.

Yeah. Value exists because we ordain it to. I made an OP awhile back about the value of labor. What we value translates into what we think labor is worth. Other resources certainly could play a role.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Subutai
Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 4:43:21 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 6:17:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:42:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Unfortunately, economics deals with a lot of conscious and unconscious bias as a result of politics. Economics is a key issue in politics, and thus, economists are often corrupted by thought-influencing ideologies. But that doesn't make the fundamental study of economics invalid. It can still be studied correctly, if done with a little political influence as possible. "Progress" is relative, especially considering that even all of our theories in the hard sciences could be completely wrong. We do have a greater understanding of economics than we did, say, even 200 years ago though.

Yes, I agree. There is so much literature out there that you simply can't trust. Methodologies in studies are often revealing. But, I think the best thing we can do is continue exploring the science. As you mentioned, we've had progress.

And I would argue that partisan economic studies are beneficial in finding the truth. When you consider the extremes of issues, the polarization often makes it easier to see the middle ground... which is normally where the truth lies. For example, if one side claims raising the minimum wage reduces poverty while the other says it facilitates poverty (ergo, increases it), it begs the question: why does each side make their claim? In studying that, you find it's a trade-off. I use that example because I think, in the economic realm, that is a fairly well-established truth.

Essentially what I'm saying is that we're not in the best scenario because of politics and the division therein, but we can make good use of the conflict, too.

You make a good point here. Plus, people tend to study highly polarizing issues more so than less polarizing ones, so more studies are published on that subject. At least of few of those should be either unbiased and/or conducted correctly. It's just there's too much misinformation and rhetoric in topics on polarizing studies that it's hard for the general public to understand what the correct position is.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 6:09:25 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 4:43:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/23/2016 6:17:15 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 11/22/2016 8:42:30 PM, Subutai wrote:
Unfortunately, economics deals with a lot of conscious and unconscious bias as a result of politics. Economics is a key issue in politics, and thus, economists are often corrupted by thought-influencing ideologies. But that doesn't make the fundamental study of economics invalid. It can still be studied correctly, if done with a little political influence as possible. "Progress" is relative, especially considering that even all of our theories in the hard sciences could be completely wrong. We do have a greater understanding of economics than we did, say, even 200 years ago though.

Yes, I agree. There is so much literature out there that you simply can't trust. Methodologies in studies are often revealing. But, I think the best thing we can do is continue exploring the science. As you mentioned, we've had progress.

And I would argue that partisan economic studies are beneficial in finding the truth. When you consider the extremes of issues, the polarization often makes it easier to see the middle ground... which is normally where the truth lies. For example, if one side claims raising the minimum wage reduces poverty while the other says it facilitates poverty (ergo, increases it), it begs the question: why does each side make their claim? In studying that, you find it's a trade-off. I use that example because I think, in the economic realm, that is a fairly well-established truth.

Essentially what I'm saying is that we're not in the best scenario because of politics and the division therein, but we can make good use of the conflict, too.

You make a good point here. Plus, people tend to study highly polarizing issues more so than less polarizing ones, so more studies are published on that subject. At least of few of those should be either unbiased and/or conducted correctly. It's just there's too much misinformation and rhetoric in topics on polarizing studies that it's hard for the general public to understand what the correct position is.

Yes, I agree. It takes sifting through a lot of information to realize what's really the truth. And, the more you read, the easier it is to identify truth with misinformation.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 6:24:40 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I put this video in the Facebook philosophy forum and just got lambasted with hateful posts. The responses I got in this forum were of much better quality.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Subutai
Posts: 3,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 8:03:59 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/23/2016 6:24:40 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I put this video in the Facebook philosophy forum and just got lambasted with hateful posts. The responses I got in this forum were of much better quality.

I make it a point to never argue politics on Facebook. That's why I'm on DDO.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2016 10:37:03 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 11:24:26 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The video is less than 2min long but I am peeved by people who think a video or an article is enough for a good OP. Let's start with some premises:

1. Economics deals in money, which does not represent real resources. For instance, economics fails COMPLETELY to address natural resources like forests, topsoil, water quality, air quality, and biodiversity. I could make this list much more exhaustive, suffice to say economics fails to take any natural resources into account.

According to Thomas Sowell, "economics" is "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses." It doesn't necessarily require the use of money.

2. There is way too much disagreement amongst experts in economics. Of course there will always be disagreement in any field, but the magnitude of which it occurs in economics is absurd. Our government is full of politicians who cant agree on even the most basic premises to start on. Is growth good? I could give a plethora of reasoning why it isn't. Is lots of governent intervention desireable or not? The experts just cannot agree on anything.

Even Keynesians agree with many free-market principles of economics (free trade versus protectionism, neoclassical principles, etc.) Even in the hard sciences we see many different interpretations (quantum mechanics for instance).

3. There is no progress like there is in real sciences. Our economy doesn't improve over time and neither do our ideas.

Economics is the study of rational human behavior. In that sense it'll never be as predictable as any hard science.