NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html
The 4 Boneheaded Biases of Stupid Voters
(And we're all stupid voters.)
Bryan Caplan

Almost all the “respectable” economic theories of politics begin by assuming that the typical citizen understands economics and votes accordingly—at least on average. By a “miracle of aggregation,” random errors are supposed to balance themselves out. But this works only if voters’ errors are random, not systematic.

The evidence—most notably, the results of the 1996 Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy—shows that the general public’s views on economics not only are different from those of professional economists but are less accurate, and in predictable ways. The public really does generally hold, for starters, that prices are not governed by supply and demand, that protectionism helps the economy, that saving labor is a bad idea, and that living standards are falling. Economics journals regularly reject theoretical papers that explicitly recognize these biases. In a well-known piece in the Journal of Political Economy in 1995, the economists Stephen Coate and Stephen Morris worry that some of their colleagues are smuggling in the “unreasonable assumptions” that voters “have biased beliefs about the effects of policies” and “could be persistently fooled.” That’s the economist’s standard view of systematic voter bias: that it doesn’t exist.

Or at least, that’s what economists say as researchers. As teachers, curiously, most economists adopt a different approach. When the latest batch of freshmen shows up for Econ 1, textbook authors and instructors still try to separate students from their prejudices. In the words of the famed economist Paul Krugman, they try “to vaccinate the minds of our undergraduates against the misconceptions that are so predominant in educated discussion.”

Out of all the complaints that economists lodge against laymen, four families of beliefs stand out: the anti-market bias, the anti-foreign bias, the make-work bias, and the pessimistic bias.

-long article continues and explains-

I just found this while searching for something else. Now, I don't want to start a debate on whether all of liberal economics is right about all possible markets. Instead I want to focus on what the article is actually about: laymen, the people you meet in real life. I know that I personally have encountered all of the views mentioned in there many times, so the guy isn't just making stuff up. Most people aren't "anti-market" because they know about information asymmetry, unlike some of the posters here. There are reasonable objections to the workings of markets in theory and practice - but those aren't the ones I encounter when I speak to normal people.

Do you think more education is in order here? Do you think the prevalence of views like this is causing harm?

I think that the prevalence of views amongst economists that "normal" people just don't "get" it is causing harm, yes.

I think the pessimistic bias is the most annoying, especially since things are generally so good for people here. (USA) I will actually answer your question after reading the article.

I think that the prevalence of views amongst economists that "normal" people just don't "get" it is causing harm, yes.

What do you mean?

tl;dr, but i studied economics & politics at university... and i still hold an anti-(only) market bias, despite the head of department having been an economic advisor to Mrs Thatcher ;)
more people should certainly understand economics better when voting, no question

despite the head of department having been an economic advisor to Mrs Thatcher ;)

:O What uni was this?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html


I just found this while searching for something else. Now, I don't want to start a debate on whether all of liberal economics is right about all possible markets. Instead I want to focus on what the article is actually about: laymen, the people you meet in real life. I know that I personally have encountered all of the views mentioned in there many times, so the guy isn't just making stuff up. Most people aren't "anti-market" because they know about information asymmetry, unlike some of the posters here. There are reasonable objections to the workings of markets in theory and practice - but those aren't the ones I encounter when I speak to normal people.

Do you think more education is in order here? Do you think the prevalence of views like this is causing harm?

I mentioned this guy in a question I posted literally less than ten minutes before this, in the "Who Should Vote?" thread.
Ignorance of economics is dangerous in the same way ignorance of science, history, or anything else that affects public policy is. Economic ignorance may be even more dangerous than most subjects. But...what can one do? Education can only go so far in removing ignorance.

What bugs me is the superior attitude of many neo-liberal economists. Economic methods can explain everything, they claim. Everything comes down to maximising economic statistics. Economists tell us to cut down on welfare for the needy, reduce regulation for business, promote selfishness, aggression and greed, proclaim this as promoting "the entrepeneurial spirit" and "freedom", while disregarding the crime, societal divisions, inequality, and practical corporate control of the government that is tied up with policies promoting a huge rich-poor gap and the creation of selfish individualists with no care for others. Praise be to our economist overlords. The public might not understand economics as well as economists do, but then economists do far more damage to the political system than any other group in society.

:O What uni was this?

Cardiff Business School: Prof Patrick Minford

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/carbs/faculty/minfordp/index.html

What bugs me is the superior attitude of many neo-liberal economists.

Uh-oh, when anyone uses that meaningless boogeyman word, warning sirens in my head go off.


Economists tell us to cut down on welfare for the needy

...no, they don't.


, reduce regulation for business

They tend to want less regulation in some areas, and more regulation in other areas. It's not that simple.


, promote selfishness, aggression and greed

Utter nonsense.


, proclaim this as promoting "the entrepeneurial spirit" and "freedom", while disregarding the crime, societal divisions, inequality, and practical corporate control of the government that is tied up with policies promoting a huge rich-poor gap and the creation of selfish individualists with no care for others.

I don't think you actually know what an economist is.

Praise be to our economist overlords. The public might not understand economics as well as economists do, but then economists do far more damage to the political system than any other group in society.

Funny that, since economists don't actually have much a say in what the government can do. Also funny how a lot of the things governments do, especially things that cause poverty, lie directly counter to what economists say you should be doing.

-snip-
I think you're missing the point of the article and the thread. And besides, the sentiments of this article aren't exactly confined to "neo-liberal" economists.

haha, silly anarcho-capitalist:

"Make-work confusion can arise only in an exchange economy. If you receive a washing machine as a gift, the benefit is yours; you have more free time and the same income. If you get downsized, the benefit goes to other people; you have more free time, but your income temporarily falls. In both cases, though, society conserves valuable labor."

gee, what could possibly cause people to oppose things that immediately harm them and those they know and love individually but are probably better for 'society' in some sense over the longer term? clearly this is some sort of confusion on their part, not a reasonable response to the promise of certain pain in exchange for some much vaguer future possible benefit.

Do you think more education is in order here? Do you think the prevalence of views like this is causing harm?

i think it is clear that certain of our savanna-brain biases are really bad - the xenophobia, for example

I'd say all of them are bad, although some might not be as bad as others.

I think the problem is that economists would like to be treated as if they were 'hard' scientists, but economics is still a 'soft' science. If and when somebody comes up with a theory of economics that holds up as well as the theories of thermodynamics, people can be educated. Until that happens, one faction's guess is as good (or bad) as any other.

I wonder if mathematics should be taught from an economic basis, once basic arithmetic is out of the way. For all those classes where I held up that plastic triangle thing asking how this was going to be of any use in my life, if we'd been taught under the framework of economics, it might have been of a little more use.

Economics wasn't even offered as a subject until I was 16.

I sometimes feel our entire education system needs an overhaul.

Point being, economists may not understand how to wire a house, an electrician might feel miffed about this but then wiring is not important in an election, economics seems to be something we should all understand on some level.

Read freakonomics by Steven D Levitt. Then go read any Critique of Freakonomics by a sociologist.

If anything it is the economist that don't get.

Every major recession and depression we were lead there by the economist.
I put much more faith in the common man who has to balance his budget or fall flat on his face then economist that deal with money that isn't there and can magically be created by turning on a printing press.

I think the problem is that economists would like to be treated as if they were 'hard' scientists, but economics is still a 'soft' science. If and when somebody comes up with a theory of economics that holds up as well as the theories of thermodynamics, people can be educated. Until that happens, one faction's guess is as good (or bad) as any other.
On some things. But nobody is asking people to wander into the realms where we haven't yet discovered the full truth of stuff. The things the article talks about are so basic, and so easily observable if people bothered that they're like gravity.

We may not fully understand what gravity is on a quantum physics level, but that's hardly an excuse were people walking around proclaiming they could fly.

I put much more faith in the common man who has to balance his budget or fall flat on his face then economist that deal with money that isn't there and can magically be created by turning on a printing press.
Which is irrelevant to the thread. We're not talking about the simpleton fantasies of the gold standard, "let's abandon the fed" types. We're talking about the misconceptions many people have about things as basic as why things in the supermarket cost what they cost.

I wonder if mathematics should be taught from an economic basis, once basic arithmetic is out of the way. For all those classes where I held up that plastic triangle thing asking how this was going to be of any use in my life, if we'd been taught under the framework of economics, it might have been of a little more use.

Economics wasn't even offered as a subject until I was 16.

I sometimes feel our entire education system needs an overhaul.

Point being, economists may not understand how to wire a house, an electrician might feel miffed about this but then wiring is not important in an election, economics seems to be something we should all understand on some level.
One problem...economics isn't a math, it's a social science. Math is still needed.


As for the article, yes. There needs to be much better general understanding of how the economy works. There needs to be a basic level of discourse, which is currently lacking.

We're talking about the misconceptions many people have about things as basic as why things in the supermarket cost what they cost.

I was going to reply with some smart alec remark that was lifted from a letter to the editors page, but I'm sure you have heard all these before.

One problem...economics isn't a math, it's a social science. Math is still needed.


As for the article, yes. There needs to be much better general understanding of how the economy works. There needs to be a basic level of discourse, which is currently lacking.

Sure, but higher math isn't worth knowing for most of us, economics is, yet we're required to keep learning a lot of math that is simply of no use to the majority.

If people are interested in higher math, they can still specialize.

Serious question: How mature a subject is economics really though? It seems to me that it is still very much in a fluid state, insofar as ideas change frequently. As such, is there much point in people investing a lot of time in learning it unless they have a particular interest because it all might be thrown out in a few years. Unlike say, Newtonian physics or geometry, which is a pretty fairly stable thing.

And I think its pretty obvious why some segments of the population resent the economic theories stuffs.

Read freakonomics by Steven D Levitt. Then go read any Critique of Freakonomics by a sociologist.

If anything it is the economist that don't get.

Every major recession and depression we were lead there by the economist.
I put much more faith in the common man who has to balance his budget or fall flat on his face then economist that deal with money that isn't there and can magically be created by turning on a printing press.

*enjoys the earthy scent of America's long history of anti-intellectualism*

Serious question: How mature a subject is economics really though? It seems to me that it is still very much in a fluid state, insofar as ideas change frequently. As such, is there much point in people investing a lot of time in learning it unless they have a particular interest because it all might be thrown out in a few years. Unlike say, Newtonian physics or geometry, which is a pretty fairly stable thing.

And I think its pretty obvious why some segments of the population resent the economic theories stuffs.

There's a lot that is fairly basic but should be understood, the 4 points in the article alone.

Better understanding how a coffee bean comes from a $1 day farmer to cost $2.45 in a cup at some outlet, why adding some foam adds another $1 to that cost.

I"m not judging the process so much as simply hoping people might better understand it.

There's fairly basic mechanisms that go to make a highly complex system, I don't think there's much disputing them and, perhaps this is purely my belief, I think people would find it fascinating because, at some level, it's describing how and why we make the decisions we do, it's relatable to all of us.

Making predictions seems the difficulty, yet the mechanisms remain the same for the most part.

Which is irrelevant to the thread. We're not talking about the simpleton fantasies of the gold standard, "let's abandon the fed" types. We're talking about the misconceptions many people have about things as basic as why things in the supermarket cost what they cost.

So am I.

An economist says things cost at the super market because Gas cost X amount, intrest rates are at Y amount, and fear of a price increase is at Z amount. leading to increased food speculation.

Normal person says items at the super market cost what they do because its cost the store a certain amount + their profit margin.

point clearly goes to the normal people for following the rule of KISS.

Serious question: How mature a subject is economics really though? It seems to me that it is still very much in a fluid state, insofar as ideas change frequently. As such, is there much point in people investing a lot of time in learning it unless they have a particular interest because it all might be thrown out in a few years. Unlike say, Newtonian physics or geometry, which is a pretty fairly stable thing.

And I think its pretty obvious why some segments of the population resent the economic theories stuffs.

In the 70's when we experienced Stagflation the economist by and large held their hands up and said I don't know(the majority at the time held that the Phillips curve was true).

So am I.

An economist says things cost at the super market because Gas cost X amount, intrest rates are at Y amount, and fear of a price increase is at Z amount. leading to increased food speculation.

Normal person says items at the super market cost what they do because its cost the store a certain amount + their profit margin.

point clearly goes to the normal people for following the rule of KISS.

and normal person still has no clue why their gallon of milk went up because of an increase in ethanol production, or why that gallon of gas, which ten years ago cost $1 now costs $4

I would say that the anti-market bias is the most predominant bias out there. In all its forms and glory.

Education would be in order but I think it would require a lot of it rather than some simple education class that people will dismiss when to get back to blaming CEO's and the like.

Yes the prevalence of vies is causing harm, and it doesn't help when we have the media promoting these views and going on about the sort of crap that the article complains about.

and normal person still has no clue why their gallon of milk went up because of an increase in ethanol production, or why that gallon of gas, which ten years ago cost $1 now costs $4

yes they do. It cost that much because that's what it cost the guy who is selling it to them.

In the 70's when we experienced Stagflation the economist by and large held their hands up and said I don't know(the majority at the time held that the Phillips curve was true).

Yes, but these new experiences lead to new economic theory and it was explained why this happened and why during the oil crisis that the Phillips curve did not work. The Phillips curve btw was not pulled out of the air it was devised after many many years of observation.

*enjoys the earthy scent of America's long history of anti-intellectualism*

No No.. I am not anti intellectual it would just be better if the history types ran the economy.

Yes, but these new experiences lead to new economic theory and it was explained why this happened and why during the oil crisis that the Phillips curve did not work. The Phillips curve btw was not pulled out of the air it was devised after many many years of observation.

yes so 30 years of New economic theory is supposed to make up for the culmination of 100 years of economic theory that turned out to be a flop.
No I say we put far too much faith in economist who have messed up. Let them get a good track record going of 100 years or so and we will see.

yes they do. It cost that much because that's what it cost the guy who is selling it to them.

That isn't understanding why. Because then they ask the attendent "why", and he says "because I paid more" and you keep going up the chain.

"Why" "Because" is not understanding.

Economics has an impact upon not just fiscal policy, but domestic and foreign policy as well (among other things). Being able to say "I pay more for gas because I am charged more" does nothing for anyone.

No No.. I am not anti intellectual it would just be better if the history types ran the economy.
You mean like Bernanke, who is looking back upon Depression-era fiscal policy to understand what not to do now?
yes so 30 years of New economic theory is supposed to make up for the culmination of 100 years of economic theory that turned out to be a flop.
No I say we put far too much faith in economist who have messed up. Let them get a good track record going of 100 years or so and we will see.

Actually, yes. Welcome to the social sciences. There is nothing concrete or definate. New issues will come along. And having a basic understanding of economics may actually help someone to understand what is going on and why, saving them money ultimatly. Understanding supply and demand to understand what a housing bubble is, and why, when that bubble bursts, you're home is suddenly worth half what you paid. Understanding why the cost of tea in China actually is somehow relevant.
Because panics are bad. Because cockiness is equally bad. Because people need to understand why these are bad, and why these reactions are actually a key source of our problems. Why "Housing market fall down and go boom" just doesn't cut it when you're in big boy world, and you need to actually get why milk costs more beyond "they're charging more" to be a decently intelligent human in a modern society.

There's a lot that is fairly basic but should be understood, the 4 points in the article alone.

Better understanding how a coffee bean comes from a $1 day farmer to cost $2.45 in a cup at some outlet, why adding some foam adds another $1 to that cost.

I"m not judging the process so much as simply hoping people might better understand it.

There's fairly basic mechanisms that go to make a highly complex system, I don't think there's much disputing them and, perhaps this is purely my belief, I think people would find it fascinating because, at some level, it's describing how and why we make the decisions we do, it's relatable to all of us.

Making predictions seems the difficulty, yet the mechanisms remain the same for the most part.

No, I can follow along with how it works, and all that stuff. And I get that people are pretty secure that they know what they know is true. But I don't know enough to judge is how solid all that really is. It's not so long ago that wage and price controls were given serious consideration. In other words, how fluid is all this stuff.

And take the whole globalization thing. Right now, it is considered to be an undiluted blessing (more or less). But I am pretty sure within the next ten years people will be saying it is a terrible idea. (And I mean respectable economists). <-- See predictions are easy :p.

Like I said, if you are interested it definitely should be studied. But if a lot of the concepts are subject to frequent massive revisions, then I can see why its not mandated for study. Though I admit, I don't know enough to say whether or not this is the case.

(Side note: Re the bailout thingy. 400 Economists signed a letter saying it was terrible. Three nobel prize winners included. Yet you can find just as many saying the opposite. This was the biggest legislative event in a generation, but apparently no amount of education in economics made the issue any clearer. So I think it is fair to be skeptical about forcing people to learn it. Sort of like higher math, or particle physics. Of course it should be available for people who are interested.)

yes so 30 years of New economic theory is supposed to make up for the culmination of 100 years of economic theory that turned out to be a flop.
No I say we put far too much faith in economist who have messed up. Let them get a good track record going of 100 years or so and we will see.

How did it turn out to be a flop? it just didn't have all the information at hand. But I would like your explanation as to how the oil crisis is the fault of economists.

I would say that the anti-market bias is the most predominant bias out there. In all its forms and glory.

i find the term 'bias' problematic here. i'm more concerned about people just not understanding how the market works, rather than not liking it as a way of doing things. not liking it is perfectly reasonable. but we should all at least have a basic understanding of how the world around us is operating.

i find the term 'bias' problematic here. i'm more concerned about people just not understanding how the market works, rather than not liking it as a way of doing things. not liking it is perfectly reasonable. but we should all at least have a basic understanding of how the world around us is operating.

Well yes not liking it is perfectly reasonable, but the term bias is used in this because they may not like it for one reason or another and so come up with explanations that satisfy their views for not liking it, rather than looking at it objectively.

Unlike say, Newtonian physics or geometry, which is a pretty fairly stable thing.


Yeah, Newtonian physics have been considered to be wrong for the past hundred years. They haven't changed much since Einstein trashed them.

You mean like Bernanke, who is looking back upon Depression-era fiscal policy to understand what not to do now?

No... A history type would realize that the situation today is a lot closer to the 70's then the 30's. Likewise economist in the 60's tried to only look back to the 20's and 30's for their economic advice. a history major needs to look at several crisis and determine which one is relevant today's issues. There after all was not just one depression or recession in our history, with not just once cause. An overreaction to Oh my god we got to prevent the the 30's is likely to lead us to a 70's or worse yet an 1870's to 1890's.
[/quote]

Actually, yes. Welcome to the social sciences. There is nothing concrete or definate. New issues will come along. And having a basic understanding of economics may actually help someone to understand what is going on and why, saving them money ultimatly. Understanding supply and demand to understand what a housing bubble is, and why, when that bubble bursts, you're home is suddenly worth half what you paid. Understanding why the cost of tea in China actually is somehow relevant.
[/quote] Do you think the cycles of supply and demand are beyond the common man? they know prices go up and down with demand. they also know that in the long run with housing prices they will go up (and will continue to so long as the human population keeps expanding)
Because panics are bad. Because cockiness is equally bad. Because people need to understand why these are bad, and why these reactions are actually a key source of our problems. Why "Housing market fall down and go boom" just doesn't cut it when you're in big boy world, and you need to actually get why milk costs more beyond "they're charging more" to be a decently intelligent human in a modern society.

Cockiness and causing panics are the realm of the economist. Do you know how rare it was prior to WWII for a farmer to change the crops he grew just because the price was bad for a few years ? Pretty rare.
Now you have economist predict corn will be high. and the prediction is either self fulfilling by causing bubble or self defeating by causing over production.
Do you know who is causing fears about there being another "great depression" ? The economist.
Who is that says if we don't do what I say(even though several different groups advocate several different things) there will be another great depression? The economist.

Also you don't need economics to know the specifics on why milk went Go ask the grocer. Odds he he asked his supplier and can provide you with the specifics( gas, cattle, feed prices, ETC). Economist simply are people too dumb to be a banker(or make money as any business owner) and not charismatic enough to get elected, but charismatic enough to sound right and get their views published.

Yeah, Newtonian physics have been considered to be wrong for the past hundred years. They haven't changed much since Einstein trashed them.

yes but Newton being wrong didn't cause millions of people to go out of work. and physicist still use them for objects when you don't need to be perfectly accurate.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html


I just found this while searching for something else. Now, I don't want to start a debate on whether all of liberal economics is right about all possible markets. Instead I want to focus on what the article is actually about: laymen, the people you meet in real life. I know that I personally have encountered all of the views mentioned in there many times, so the guy isn't just making stuff up. Most people aren't "anti-market" because they know about information asymmetry, unlike some of the posters here. There are reasonable objections to the workings of markets in theory and practice - but those aren't the ones I encounter when I speak to normal people.

Do you think more education is in order here? Do you think the prevalence of views like this is causing harm?

An economist thinks economists have got special knowledge that other people (sorry - 'boneheads') lack? Colour me surprised.

The economist.

A titanic, monolithic entity, bestride our beleashed economic future?

yes but Newton being wrong didn't cause millions of people to go out of work.

How, praytell, have economists gained responsibility for millions to go out of work?

and physicist still use them for objects when you don't need to be perfectly accurate.

And when have such measurements been even remotely important to modern physics?

An economist thinks economists have got special knowledge that other people (sorry - 'boneheads') lack? Colour me surprised.

Generally, when one gets a specialized education that is the case.

Generally, when one gets a specialized education that is the case.

The difference being, as someone educated as a chemist, I don't call non-chemists boneheads, or act like what I know is some kind of secret.

The difference being, as someone educated as a chemist, I don't call non-chemists boneheads, or act like what I know is some kind of secret.

You would if a non-chemist started talking about Chemical reactions that are completly wrong as if they did know what they were talking about.

Yeah, Newtonian physics have been considered to be wrong for the past hundred years. They haven't changed much since Einstein trashed them.

Static problems: Sum of the forces = 0.

Where exactly did Einstein trash that? That's right, nowhere.

Anyway, the fact is that Newton stuff is everyday use. And still gets far more work than Einstein. Nobody is saying that it is a fundamentally accurate picture, but it is absolutely used all the time, because for 99% of problems it is more than close enough. (More accurate than measurement/build tolerance).

Just like nobody insists that Pi gets used to a million decimal places. We can live with the fact that every single circumference of a circle calculated from its diameter is 'wrong'.

And when have such measurements been even remotely important to modern physics?

NASA stuffs.

Economics isn't as complicated as the economists want you to think. If it's bat$hit insane for you to do something, it's bat$hit insane for governments or businesses to do that same thing.

1. Live on less than you make
2. avoid using credit for everyday expenses
3. save up in anticipation of major expenses and so avoid borrowing to cover them
4. pay off all debts in whole as promptly as possible

We all KNOW this is a good idea, but somehow society thinks the rules change when the scales get big. Personal debt is bad, government debt is good. Personal budget deficits are bad, government deficits are good. Bullshit. Always ask, "Is this a good idea if applied to my personal finances?" and if the answer is negative at that level, it's negative at all levels.

This bailout is akin to a payday loan from a usurer. Payback is gonna hurt. Furthermore, we've essentially given a blank check to the very guys who have robbed us. No, a better analogy would be to say that the guys who robbed us have forged our signatures on a blank check and given it to the mafia.

Static problems: Sum of the forces = 0.

Where exactly did Einstein trash that? That's right, nowhere.

Anyway, the fact is that Newton stuff is everyday use. And still gets far more work than Einstein. Nobody is saying that it is a fundamentally accurate picture, but it is absolutely used all the time, because for 99% of problems it is more than close enough. (More accurate than measurement/build tolerance).

The thing is, you alleged that Newton was accurate, not that it was useful. Newton is not accurate.

Just like nobody insists that Pi gets used to a million decimal places. We can live with the fact that every single circumference of a circle calculated from its diameter is 'wrong'.

Either that, or if you're using pi for anything serious, you don't use the decimal form. You use the Greek letter.

NASA stuffs.

Such as...

...?

The difference being, as someone educated as a chemist, I don't call non-chemists boneheads, or act like what I know is some kind of secret.

If a layman were to come up to you and ask which of the four elements is most important to you, how would you judge them? Especially if they were college educated, not necessarily in chemistry, but in another field, maybe Business.

I, for example, even though not an evolutionary biologist by trade or training, have no qualms with calling someone who believes in creationism a bonehead.

You would if a non-chemist started talking about Chemical reactions that are completly wrong as if they did know what they were talking about.

I'd probably point out the error of their ways... IF they were wrong.

And there's where the parallel has to end, because economics is a real science the way astrology is...

We all KNOW this is a good idea, but somehow society thinks the rules change when the scales get big. Personal debt is bad, government debt is good. Personal budget deficits are bad, government deficits are good. Bullshit. Always ask, "Is this a good idea if applied to my personal finances?" and if the answer is negative at that level, it's negative at all levels.

And this is exactly the sort of thing the article is talking about. Government deficits can be a good thing and sometimes have to be used in order to facilitate economic growth, to say that people should at least balance their budget rather than go into debt so the government should do this to is ridiculous. If the government tried to do this every year than during times of recession it will prolong the recession or could make things even worse.

I'd probably point out the error of their ways... IF they were wrong.

And there's where the parallel has to end, because economics is a real science the way astrology is...

Nooooo....

Economics does its best to apply the scientific method to study how humans make decisions. It's not perfect, but it does a fairly good job at doing this.

Astrology is straight-up made-up.

I'd probably point out the error of their ways... IF they were wrong.

And there's where the parallel has to end, because economics is a real science the way astrology is...

Now who is being all elitist, economics is a social science, it is not a physical science like chemistry.

Now if they were wrong but still refused to believe you and continued with their own beliefs what would you say about that?

No... A history type would realize that the situation today is a lot closer to the 70's then the 30's. Likewise economist in the 60's tried to only look back to the 20's and 30's for their economic advice. a history major needs to look at several crisis and determine which one is relevant today's issues. There after all was not just one depression or recession in our history, with not just once cause. An overreaction to Oh my god we got to prevent the the 30's is likely to lead us to a 70's or worse yet an 1870's to 1890's. First of all, history is anything but accurate and concrete. You will find the same problems. We can learn from mistakes, yes (Bernanke not closing off money supplies), but there will always be a new mistake to be made. This is hardly reason to ignore an entire branch of life. A historian can look back, sure. But can he actually describe what happened and why? Great...a historian can say "Well, the fed raised interest rates on this date, and this happened later". I want a correlation between the two, or it isn't worth the time it took to type the sentence. Economists describe these correlations. That is the role of a social scientist: to look at what is happening and explain why.

Do you think the cycles of supply and demand are beyond the common man? they know prices go up and down with demand. they also know that in the long run with housing prices they will go up (and will continue to so long as the human population keeps expanding)
No, I fully trust that any person can regergitate that demand increases, prices go up. However, I don't believe that many understand it beyond what you can find on Ebay.
The evidence favors me here. I don't trust that someone actually understands supply and demand when they can't even grasp living within ones means.

Cockiness and causing panics are the realm of the economist. Do you know how rare it was prior to WWII for a farmer to change the crops he grew just because the price was bad for a few years ? Pretty rare. Any evidence to back that up?
And interestingly, years of not rotating crops was a major cause of the Dust Bowl.
Now you have economist predict corn will be high. and the prediction is either self fulfilling by causing bubble or self defeating by causing over production.
Do you know who is causing fears about there being another "great depression" ? The economist.Which economist? You discuss them as if they have a hive mind. As mentioned before, 400 signed on against the bailout. Just as many said it was needed.
And I'd like to see statistics for how frequently farmers rotate crops now, and how that is tied to the predictions of economists at large.

No, I suspect it actually has more to do with supply and demand. Corn is used as human food and animal feed. Then, suddenly, we start using more ethanol and stupidly use corn to make it. Demand goes up. It becomes more profitable to grow corn. Farmers swap to growing corn. Demand, supply, and prices fluctuate untill a new point of stability is found. The economist comes in somewhere in the middle of this to explain what is going on, and why. Why does corn suddenly cost twice as much?

I'll give you a hint. It isn't just because the economist said it would, and it isn't just because the grocery store decided to charge more.
Who is that says if we don't do what I say(even though several different groups advocate several different things) there will be another great depression? The economist.
Again, which. There is no one "economist", unless you are discussing the newspaper.
The Real Clear Money headlines from this morning? Here they are.

Myth Busting On the Way To an Economic Solution - A. Vargas Llosa, TNR
Good Policies Can Save the Economy - Lee Ohanian, Wall Street Journal
The Bailout and the Vanishing Taxpayer - Steven Malanga, RCM
Give the Rescue Plan Time - Editorial, Los Angeles Times
A Better Bailout with Actual Foundation - Nicole Gelinas, City Journal
Another Rescue But Still No Solution - David Wighton, Times of London
Ignoring Reality Has a Price - David Leonhardt, New York Times
SEC's Short-Seller Witch Hunt Nabs a Munchkin - J. Weil, Bloomberg
Bailout For Detroit's Bankrupt - Thomas Cooley, Forbes
Globalizing The Crisis Response - Bergsten & Subramanian, Wash Post
Let's Call Off the Recession - Louis Woodhill, RealClearMarkets
The European Union's Do-Nothings - Editorial, Investor's Business DailySome supporting the bailout, some proposing new ones, some saying we're fucked, others saying it will be fixed.

Which economist?
Also you don't need economics to know the specifics on why milk went Go ask the grocer. Odds he he asked his supplier and can provide you with the specifics( gas, cattle, feed prices, ETC). Economist simply are people too dumb to be a banker(or make money as any business owner) and not charismatic enough to get elected, but charismatic enough to sound right and get their views published.
Great. I can ask the grocer. And he can tell me that his supplier charged him more. And then I can ask his supplier, who can tell me that gas costs more, and the milk itself is more expensive. Then I can go ask the go as the dairy farmer why milk is more expensive, and he can talk to me about how feed is more expensive. And I can talk to the guy who runs the local gas station, and he can tell me about how the price of oil has increased thanks to whomever he is choosing to blame. Etc, ad. inf.

Or, I could get a basic understanding of economics and pick up a newspaper every once and a while. It is exactly as was stated in V for Vendetta.
Finch: I had to see it. There wasn't much left. But when I was there it was strange. I suddenly had this feeling that everything was connected. It's like I could see the whole thing, one long chain of events that stretched all the way back before Larkhill. I felt like I could see everything that happened, and everything that is going to happen. It was like a perfect pattern, laid out in front of me. And I realised we're all part of it, and all trapped by it.
Dominic: So do you know what's gonna happen?
Finch: No, it was a feeling. But I can guess. With so much chaos, someone will do something stupid. And when they do, things will turn nasty.
Economists are not stupid people, as you imply, nor are they a hive mind, all advocating the same thing. They are social scientists, little different from psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists. They analyze what has happened, create a theory, and apply it to what happens now to see what may happen next.

The thing is, you alleged that Newton was accurate, not that it was useful. Newton is not accurate.

I alleged nothing. I said that it was a stable body of knowledge. And it is. It's also really useful. Moreover, some parts of it are accurate.

Either that, or if you're using pi for anything serious, you don't use the decimal form. You use the Greek letter.

If you actually want to do anything with it in RL, you actually have to get a number at some point. And all those numbers were wrong. Though the fact is that Pi to 37 decimal places could calculate the circumference of the galaxy within even the measurement error of the most accurate instruments, so no one cares.

Now who is being all elitist, economics is a social science, it is not a physical science like chemistry.

Now if they were wrong but still refused to believe you and continued with their own beliefs what would you say about that?

I didn't say I wasnt elitist, but that's irrelevent anyway.

Economics is not hard science. There's no need to shit your diaper about it - it's just not.

youtube - how we got this way (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIlr77NF8I) partial explanation. Actually, it explains almost everything about where we are.

Such as...

...?

Fluid mechanics.

I didn't say I wasnt elitist, but that's irrelevent anyway.

Economics is not hard science. There's no need to shit your diaper about it - it's just not.

Did I ever say it was?

And what is the answer to my second question?

And this is exactly the sort of thing the article is talking about. Government deficits can be a good thing and sometimes have to be used in order to facilitate economic growth, to say that people should at least balance their budget rather than go into debt so the government should do this to is ridiculous. If the government tried to do this every year than during times of recession it will prolong the recession or could make things even worse.

We are facing a depression precisely BECAUSE the government has gone into debt, run massive deficits, and set artificially low interest rates.

I didn't say I wasnt elitist, but that's irrelevent anyway.

Economics is not hard science. There's no need to shit your diaper about it - it's just not.

Sure, economics is not a hard science.

But it's definitely not astrology, nor is it anywhere close to being astrology.

It utilizes the scientific method to the best of its capability to describe how people make decisions, and predict the consequences of their decisions. Economics can provide accurate predictions on a fairly reliable basis.

Fluid mechanics.

My experience with fluid dynamics engineering shows us that straight-up Newtonian physics is a broadly bad idea. It is insufficiently descriptive of what we see when fluids move. There's a significant degree of uncertainty built in.

We are facing a depression precisely BECAUSE the government has gone into debt, run massive deficits, and set artificially low interest rates.
The real issue is that the American government is full of politicians who know as much about the economy as the average voter described by the OP. I thoroughly njoy watching politicians give speeches about the economy with a handful of economics textbooks and white papers, and seeing what the masters have to say on the subjects.

The economists generally reply with "this is wrong on so many levels." or "this has never worked the many times it was tried."

So far, the only thing my texts have agreed with politicians on 100% (if you don't count the socialists) is John McCain's "the fundamentals of our economy are sound."

youtube - how we got this way (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pHIlr77NF8I) partial explanation. Actually, it explains almost everything about where we are.

This is a much better explanation - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g

We are facing a depression precisely BECAUSE the government has gone into debt, run massive deficits, and set artificially low interest rates.

On the case of low interest rates I will agree with you that is part of the reason but as the Fed is independent (please correct me if it isn't but that will be strange) then hardly the governments fault, of course notice how I said sometimes deficits are good and essential for a government, now during the boom the US government should have been running a surplus now rather than a deficit and from a chart I saw I believe that this has been going on for quite a few decades now. There are other reasons why the economy is facing a recession that are independent of the government as well.

I see Leon is back he will sort all this out.

Did I ever say it was?

And what is the answer to my second question?

I don't understand the second question. How are they 'wrong'?

Back in the early 90's I learned an interesting lesson, arguing as a relative amateur, on several occassions with learned professionals (especially, this chap, with whom I had several conflicts regarding the aromtacity of C60+ molecules: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sbs/staff/staff_academic/teesdale-spittlepaul/teesdale-spittle-paul.aspx) which is that - the dominant theories are not always right.

If this is true in Chemistry... it's a thousand times as true in economics.

My experience with fluid dynamics engineering shows us that straight-up Newtonian physics is a broadly bad idea. It is insufficiently descriptive of what we see when fluids move. There's a significant degree of uncertainty built in.

Really? What specifically within fluid mechanics contradicts the Newtonian world view? Are you saying that Navier and Stokes were wrong, and they should go back to the drawing board when they re-incarnate?

It utilizes the scientific method to the best of its capability to describe how people make decisions, and predict the consequences of their decisions. Economics can provide accurate predictions on a fairly reliable basis.

I can show you a method for sketching molecular bonds that will provide accurate predictions of what will bond with what, and how... and that is absolutely 100% fabrication with no sensible base in the REALITY of chemical bonding, at all.

Economics is a sketch.

I don't understand the second question. How are they 'wrong'?

Back in the early 90's I learned an interesting lesson, arguing as a relative amateur, on several occassions with learned professionals (especially, this chap, with whom I had several conflicts regarding the aromtacity of C60+ molecules: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sbs/staff/staff_academic/teesdale-spittlepaul/teesdale-spittle-paul.aspx) which is that - the dominant theories are not always right.

If this is true in Chemistry... it's a thousand times as true in economics.

You said you would point out the errors in their ways. Now if they refused these errors and continued to be wrong, then what would you do, it might be something as basic as how atoms are comprised in the sense of the amount of electrons and how their weights are measured. You may explain to them what that an atom is comprised of but if they refused to believe this and continued to say something that relied on atoms not having electrons then what would you say to them?

You said you would point out the errors in their ways. Now if they refused these errors and continued to be wrong, then what would you do, it might be something as basic as how atoms are comprised in the sense of the amount of electrons and how their weights are measured. You may explain to them what that an atom is comprised of but if they refused to believe this and continued to say something that relied on atoms not having electrons then what would you say to them?

What do you want me to say?

If Rutherford was wrong, you want me to pretend I couldn't be?

What do you want me to say?

If Rutherford was wrong, you want me to pretend I couldn't be?

Well yeah, that's what scientists do these days. Amiright??

Well yeah, that's what scientists do these days. Amiright??

Those who do, do so in spite of science, rather than on it's behalf.

The only difference between economics and, say, physics, is that human beings act unpredictably, unpredictable even in their unpredictability.

An oxygen molecule is likely to react the same way as another given the same set of circumstances, that's not the case with humans, go down further levels and you start to find the entire universe seems built on unpredictably but at the point of molecules, we're mostly good.

I remember a BA director saying that all flights would run efficiently and on time if it wasn't for the damn passengers.

Economics is a sketch.

This might be one of the most significant statements of the thread. Because it is 100% accurate.

To draw this thread back to the original topic a bit, this is what must be understood about the science of economics. It is a description of activities of man. As such, it simply can not be perfect. It is an image of how things worked in the past...kenesian economics says an advancement in technology or increased government spending will fuel the economy because that is what happened before.

My major issue with economics is that it ignores too much else. I don't disagree that it has to, but it fails at the full picture, much as psychology and sociology must, as they only look at one section to explain human behavior (I tend to lean towards anthropology for this reason...it is fairly holistic)

This actually reminds me of something kinda relevant. The economy, since 1999, has not functioned as expected. We hit a recession with the tech bubble bursting. Everything dropped...except housing prices. Then we hit 9/11. Again, recession, with everything dropping. Except housing prices.

When a recession usually hits, everything reacts. This time it didn't. The markers were there, but most of us missed it. Sure, we saw that housing was still going strong, but few people, if any at that point, mentioned that housing might not be reacting because something was wrong.

This is ultimatly why people need to understand economics on a basic level. What is a recession? What is a depression? What is a bubble? How do you identify them? What is supply and demand? How do they work together, and how can demand increase as everything that supports demand drops?

Had this bubble been identified in 2001, it could have been deflated slowly.

The first rumblings came up in 2003 and 2004...the first economists started to come forward and say "Hey...this isn't right. What's going on?". They were sadly ignored, but again, the bubble could have been deflated, rather than bursting.

I can remember talking with my dad about how housing prices could keep going up as everything else fell...how could unemployment be going up, but more people buying houses? It didn't make sense. Now, the armchair economist in me looks back to explain what happened and how we got to where we are. No, I don't have the formulas of a true economist, but I have enough of a grasp of the situation to look back and say "There. That's where the problem was. This wasn't right".

All citizens need to be able to look back at the economic events of the past to understand what is happening in the present and where it may lead us. The next time housing markets continue to skyrocket while unemployment rises and wages drop should trigger something in everyones head.

The question will be, do enough people understand what is going on to be able to do that.

Needless to say, I side with the "everyone else", though my beef is not with "economists" as such. The study of economics is the study of how an arbitrary system of trade functions. Sure, there's a bit of pseudo-psychology involved, but basically the entire field consists of "here's a way of doing things that we invented, here's how it works, and here's our justification as to why it is the only one that does".

The thing is, the system itself is fundamentally weak. It is balanced precariously on a poor philosophical understanding (or, more accurately, definition) of the concept of Value - the instability of which is the prime cause of the failures of trade and the imbalance of wealth.

Economists learn a few psychology skills and a beginner's grasp of logic and mathematics through their study, just as a car mechanic learns a few generally useful engineering techniques. But the car is a screwed up invention, and regardless of the fact that mechanics are "experts" in the way the cars "work", they're not experts in the way that transport should work. The same applies to economists and the exchange of goods and services, and they would be wise to appreciate that.

I think the problem is that economists would like to be treated as if they were 'hard' scientists, but economics is still a 'soft' science. If and when somebody comes up with a theory of economics that holds up as well as the theories of thermodynamics, people can be educated. Until that happens, one faction's guess is as good (or bad) as any other.

this i agree with. economics is linked closely with politics insofar that it could be considered - in part at least - a tool of achieving political aims.

since these political aims are usually subjective, based on subjective philosophies or ethics, the weighting behind economics - either as an academic study or in practice - depends on one's ethics. sure, econometrics and modelling helps sure up the 'science' part, but the link is always there with subjective politics.

hence the often wildly fluctuating viewpoints of economists, and another reason why its confusing to the average person... who's right? who do you trust? it often just sounds like more politics, and, on top of that, its "airy-fairy" and abstract, not engaging with most people's everyday lives (as far as most would assume), and it becomes difficult to convince anybody to care about economics at all.




as a side note, i read a short letter in my local paper recently. it read (to paraphrase): "The Tesco closest to me sells a loaf of bread for £1.38, and yet down the road at the local Londis* it costs £1.64. I find this outrageous! Are they not both supermarkets!?"
That's what we're dealing with, ladies and gents


*Londis is a small chain of convenience stores, while Tesco is the UK's largest supermarket with 40%+ market share

*snip*

I don't know, how can we blame economists, it's like blaming film critics for a rubbish film, or film historians for the current state of the film industry.

I'm sure they influence the future direction of film but they're powerless in the face of public opinion as well as some director coming out of left field with a new technique that changes movies.

Not necessarily saying film industry is bad, it's just a comparison, quit oppressing me!

As a side note, i read a short letter in my local paper recently. it read (to paraphrase): "The Tesco closest to me sells a loaf of bread for £1.38, and yet down the road at the local Londis* it costs £1.64. I find this outrageous! Are they not both supermarkets!?"
That's what we're dealing with, ladies and gents


*Londis is a small chain of convenience stores, while Tesco is the UK's largest supermarket with 40%+ market share

Actually, it's not necessarily the market share that determines the price alone. Londis can charge more because it's convenient for customers given it's just down the road compared to Tesco's, which tend to sit outside a town or city.

That in itself is not so important, it's not that they're charging for convenience because they can, the truth is that they are also charged for land, to be that convenient, Londis is paying far more per sq.m.

All this to say, locality of land is probably the greatest difference in prices.

Mortgages, that's why this crisis is so very different to others, say a tech bubble, because land is at the bottom of everything.

Actually, it's not necessarily the market share that determines the price alone. Londis can charge more because it's convenient for customers given it's just down the road compared to Tesco's, which tend to sit outside a town or city.

That in itself is not so important, it's not that they're charging for convenience because they can, the truth is that they are also charged for land, to be that convenient, Londis is paying far more per sq.m.

All this to say, locality of land is probably the greatest difference in prices.

Mortgages, that's why this crisis is so very different to others, say a tech bubble, because land is at the bottom of everything.

well my main assumption was economies of scale were in play, as well as Tesco's legendary supply chain management and aggressive buying policies, but that's got to be a factor as well indeed.

oh and i wasn't referencing the current economic crisis - Londis have always been more expensive. this could have been written last year, five years ago, it wouldn't be any different. but certainly the mortgage issue will widen the price gap, especially when Tesco likely own their land outright

I don't know, how can we blame economists, it's like blaming film critics for a rubbish film, or film historians for the current state of the film industry.
The thing is, the economists are the ones who maintain the economic system by being the consultants that people go to talk to. It's a bit like blaming film critics for a rubbish film that they were consulted on during its construction.

Maybe it's just the fault of a few really bad economists, and I'm prepared to admit that, but in any case, the basic critique that Economic theory has a catastrophically muddled and confused sense of Value stands, and it got there because of what Economists proposed and considered.

as a side note, i read a short letter in my local paper recently. it read (to paraphrase): "The Tesco closest to me sells a loaf of bread for £1.38, and yet down the road at the local Londis* it costs £1.64. I find this outrageous! Are they not both supermarkets!?"
That's what we're dealing with, ladies and gents
Thank you for getting this thread back on track. As refreshing as it is to hear to everyone critiquing something they don't understand, the thread isn't about "is economics always 100% correct?" but "what are the implications of people refusing to believe the things that are?"

Thank you for getting this thread back on track. As refreshing as it is to hear to everyone critiquing something they don't understand, the thread isn't about "is economics always 100% correct?" but "what are the implications of people refusing to believe the things that are?"
The problem is that you could apply that to large parts of popular political discourse. If people were more informed about the science of climate change or embryonic stem cell research, for example, would people be willing to do more about climate change and would there be less opposition to embronic stem cell research? Probably. You can also apply that to history as well, the myths surrounding the founding of the USA spring to mind.

However, it does seem odd that, despite it being such an important topic, economics is almost absent from the British education system - it would be far more useful than having to take English Literature on top of general English, but that's just my opinion.

Economics does its best to apply the scientific method to study how humans make decisions. It's not perfect, but it does a fairly good job at doing this.



It utilizes the scientific method to the best of its capability to describe how people make decisions, and predict the consequences of their decisions. Economics can provide accurate predictions on a fairly reliable basis.

... Wouldn't that be Psychology. Economics may indicate the social forces in place pushing us towards one decision or another, but how is distictly part of psychology (which arguably has a significantly better claim on the science label).

Ok, yes, I admit, being a Psychology, I am probably biased on that point :P

The only difference between economics and, say, physics, is that human beings act unpredictably, unpredictable even in their unpredictability.


This I think does illustrate my issue I've been able to see with economics (and this could just be an educated lay-man's view, I admit). Economics appears to assume that people make decisions rationally. We are not rational beings, there are too many influences on our behaviour for that. We make decisions based on emotionally influences, personality influnces, educational/socialization influences (our believes and assumptions about 'how the world works'), social influences and cognitive influences. People seem unpredictable because often we only know some of these... the more data you have, the more you can predict someone's behaviour. Economics however seems to mostly concentrate on only certain of these influences and ignores others.

... Wouldn't that be Psychology. Economics may indicate the social forces in place pushing us toward one decision or another, but how is distinctly part of psychology (which arguably has a significantly better claim on the science label).

Ok, yes, I admit, being a Psychology, I am probably biased on that point :P



This I think does illustrate my issue I've been able to see with economics (and this could just be an educated lay-man's view, I admit). Economics appears to assume that people make decisions rationally. We are not rational beings, there are too many influences on our behaviour for that. We make decisions based on emotionally influences, personality influences, educational/socialization influences (our believes and assumptions about 'how the world works'), social influences and cognitive influences. People seem unpredictable because often we only know some of these... the more data you have, the more you can predict someone's behaviour. Economics however seems to mostly concentrate on only certain of these influences and ignores others.

Don't forget groupthink.... Otherwise I totally agree. This is where the 'science' of economics falls over.

Overall I think the main issue with economists is that they regard the field as having laws akin to Boyles Law. But economics is a human created system, sharing more in common with the humanities than physics. Like most specialists, those who work in the field are also akin to isolationism, dismissing non-economic factors. To those outside the discipline it signals arrogance. If an engineer dismisses user safety in his design because it was thermally efficient, he'd be dismissed. If an economist dismisses social consequences of his design because it's cost effective, he's hailed as a god.

oh and i wasn't referencing the current economic crisis - Londis have always been more expensive. this could have been written last year, five years ago, it wouldn't be any different. but certainly the mortgage issue will widen the price gap, especially when Tesco likely own their land outright

Sure, I was just linking my own point to say that that land value is probably most fundamental to an economy, not a comment on your point, to which I was only adding to as opposed to refuting.

The thing is, the economists are the ones who maintain the economic system by being the consultants that people go to talk to. It's a bit like blaming film critics for a rubbish film that they were consulted on during its construction.

Maybe it's just the fault of a few really bad economists, and I'm prepared to admit that, but in any case, the basic critique that Economic theory has a catastrophically muddled and confused sense of Value stands, and it got there because of what Economists proposed and considered.

I suspect many economists are frustrated by politicians who think they cannot sell it to the public - I imagine this might be similar with film, where a producer might say 'this is a stunning and deep concept for a film, groundbreaking really but... can we have some exploding cars and love nekkidness otherwise we can't sell it to the public'

Similarly, an economist might point out something that will soon explode, or suggest certain taxes need raising and the politician is like 'yeah, as necessary as this might be, the public will crucify me for even suggesting it so, well let's wait til at least after the next election eh?'

I suspect the same for education, that most governments know that great changes are required, but selling it to Joe Sixpack is another matter.

Anyway, I find it hard to blame economists for much.

I think the problem is that economists would like to be treated as if they were 'hard' scientists, but economics is still a 'soft' science. If and when somebody comes up with a theory of economics that holds up as well as the theories of thermodynamics, people can be educated. Until that happens, one faction's guess is as good (or bad) as any other.

I don't think that economics is any less of a science than climatology in some senses, at least the completely subjective parameters that these 'anti-economist' types apply to what is and what isn't scientific. They usually say that economics can't be scientific because humanity is very chaotic and unpredictable. So is the climate. Sometimes it seems that economists predictions are more accurate on a regular basis than the weather report. I will happily concede that economics is not scientific, only when people also concede that neither is climatology.

The thing is, the economists are the ones who maintain the economic system by being the consultants that people go to talk to. It's a bit like blaming film critics for a rubbish film that they were consulted on during its construction.


Really, this is just nonsense. Most economists, as in ones that actually studied economics in uni, have little political leverage in how the country should be managed.

Every major recession and depression we were lead there by the economist.

Nonsnse, ignoring the fact that again, economists don't have much political leverage. When, for instance, did any economist say that sub-prime loaning is anything but a bad idea?

... Wouldn't that be Psychology. Economics may indicate the social forces in place pushing us towards one decision or another, but how is distictly part of psychology (which arguably has a significantly better claim on the science label).

Ok, yes, I admit, being a Psychology, I am probably biased on that point :P


Psychology does that, yes, but so does economics and sociology. Political science tries and fails, because it attempts to argue from normative positions, which is impossible. But, it's what the social sciences try to do.

Sure, I was just linking my own point to say that that land value is probably most fundamental to an economy, not a comment on your point, to which I was only adding to as opposed to refuting.


well that's fair enough :)
i'm just used to getting defensive round here ;)

I can show you a method for sketching molecular bonds that will provide accurate predictions of what will bond with what, and how... and that is absolutely 100% fabrication with no sensible base in the REALITY of chemical bonding, at all.

Then it clearly has nothing to do with economics, because economics is rooted in the reality of how people make decisions. That is exactly how it makes those predictions...it observes reality through experimentation and observation, and derives theories from that.

Don't forget groupthink.... Otherwise I totally agree. This is where the 'science' of economics falls over.


I consider groupthink to be a social influence as it is a direct result of a specific set of social psychological pressures and group decision making processes.

I've noticed this, especially with respect to comparative advantage. It's surprising how many people, including intelligent people, simply don't understand the concept.

On the other hand, people pay a lot of attention both to the opinions of recognized experts and to the simple facts of reality around them, so I'm not sure that it's as massive a problem as Bryan Caplan would like us to believe.

Anyway, I find it hard to blame economists for much.

Then on the same token you can't blame politicians for these problems, as they all have to moderate themselves for other's benefits. You (economics advisors to governments and banks) can't have it both ways - claiming success for success and decrying others for failure.

The main problem is some economists willing to put forward an ideological ideal as the whole truth, and those willing to accept it for ideology or power (money/political), with the usual 'follow the leader' approach smaller groups take when they see short term success.

The difference being, as someone educated as a chemist, I don't call non-chemists boneheads, or act like what I know is some kind of secret.

Out of all the teachers I remember having in school, 'hard' science teachers were by far, by millions of miles in fact, the most condescending.

Out of all the teachers I remember having in school, 'hard' science teachers were by far, by millions of miles in fact, the most condescending.

And my chemistry teacher between ages of, maybe 12 and 16, was by far the worst teacher I had for any subject, ever. I'm not quite sure it matters.

And my chemistry teacher between ages of, maybe 12 and 16, was by far the worst teacher I had for any subject, ever. I'm not quite sure it matters.

I seemed to get the impression that you were saying that economists are more condescending than hard scientists. From my experience, this isn't the case.

Then it clearly has nothing to do with economics, because economics is rooted in the reality of how people make decisions. That is exactly how it makes those predictions...it observes reality through experimentation and observation, and derives theories from that.

And the 'sketch' description is based on observable results of molecular bonding... but it's still just a toy. The 'tricks' it uses to approximate bonding are happy coincidences of diagramming that approximate a large number of bonding occurences, but NOT by being based on anything material.

That's economics. It's a toy, that approximates a proportion of the results.

Economics isn't really a mathematical science. It's a field of philosophy. The worst economic ideas seem to arise when economists try to make every economic decision into an equation.

And the 'sketch' description is based on observable results of molecular bonding... but it's still just a toy. The 'tricks' it uses to approximate bonding are happy coincidences of diagramming that approximate a large number of bonding occurences, but NOT by being based on anything material.

That's economics. It's a toy, that approximates a proportion of the results.

No economist will say that their predictions are not approximations, and that they're predictions are actually absolute.

Economics isn't really a mathematical science. It's a field of philosophy.

No, that's politics. The field of economics isn't ethics, it's not about what you SHOULD do. Economics is about what will happen if you do something, and how the economy and the markets work.

I seemed to get the impression that you were saying that economists are more condescending than hard scientists. From my experience, this isn't the case.

Not at all - some hard science teachers/students/experts are absolutely the most condescending people I've ever met in any field except politics and theology. They shouldnt be - all science is approximation.

The advantage that chemistry has over economics is that it's studying something real, material and physical. You can watch molecular bonding. Economics is more like theology... it invokes an 'invisible hand' and some 'forces' it claims exist. It's bad science, at best.

No economist will say that their predictions are not approximations, and that they're predictions are actually absolute.

But the article has 'boneheads' being ridiculed for not 'believing in the same gods' that the writer is discussing.

Not at all - some hard science teachers/students/experts are absolutely the most condescending people I've ever met in any field except politics and theology. They shouldnt be - all science is approximation.

The advantage that chemistry has over economics is that it's studying something real, material and physical. You can watch molecular bonding. Economics is more like theology... it invokes an 'invisible hand' and some 'forces' it claims exist. It's bad science, at best.

Economics also studies real things, you know like... markets, people, resources... etc... All real things. The 'forces' are just human nature. Try buying a greenday ticket below retail price on ebay, the day before the concert, and then tell me that supply and demand is not real. In fact, if every guess is about the economy is as good as another, then there is no reason why governments shouldn't just print a few trillion dollars and give it to everyone, right?

But the article has 'boneheads' being ridiculed for not 'believing in the same gods' that the writer is discussing.

Can you give a specific example?

Economics also studies real things, you know like... markets, people, resources... etc... All real things. The 'forces' are just human nature. Try buying a greenday ticket below retail price on ebay, the day before the concert, and then tell me that supply and demand is not real. In fact, if every guess is about the economy is as good as another, then there is no reason why governments shouldn't just print a few trillion dollars and give it to everyone, right?

Mmmm, logical fallacy soup.

Mmmm, logical fallacy soup.

Where is the logical fallacy?

For the record, I don't actually consider economics a 'hard' science. Not yet anyway, the economy and the way people interact with each other is an extremely difficult thing to model, so it's impossible to make absolute predictions, however it is an evolving science, and the predictions are getting more and more accurate and taking more and more factors into account.

Then on the same token you can't blame politicians for these problems, as they all have to moderate themselves for other's benefits. You (economics advisors to governments and banks) can't have it both ways - claiming success for success and decrying others for failure.

The main problem is some economists willing to put forward an ideological ideal as the whole truth, and those willing to accept it for ideology or power (money/political), with the usual 'follow the leader' approach smaller groups take when they see short term success.

I'm really not sure you've met too many economists, most are more interested in the sheer wonder of the economic world over pushing their own agenda and, as others have said, I'm not too sure as to their overall influence, though certainly some have been very influential.

I blame politicians most, of all stripes, because someone has to make some hard decisions and since, in some sense, they're the parents of the nation, they shouldn't be pandering to gut public opinion.

I certainly hated my parents at times for the positions they took but the fact is that they only ever wanted the best for me, that was the source of everything they did regardless of whether it was right or wrong in my opinion.

Between mainstream politics and mainstream media, I'm not sure which is worse, both are about sales and popularity over and above responsibility.

Not at all - some hard science teachers/students/experts are absolutely the most condescending people I've ever met in any field except politics and theology. They shouldnt be - all science is approximation.

The advantage that chemistry has over economics is that it's studying something real, material and physical. You can watch molecular bonding. Economics is more like theology... it invokes an 'invisible hand' and some 'forces' it claims exist. It's bad science, at best.

I know your biases against the market are showing through, and it irritates you when people point that out, but economics relies heavily on experimentation. That's largely how I paid for my luxuries* during college, by being paid as a research subject by social scientists. Market simulations, negotiation simulations.

As it stands, the interactions between people are real and measurable. It's not as "hard" as chemistry, but it's not theology. There is nothing measurable about theology.

In astrophysics, for instance, we can't see black holes. But, we can measure the effects of black holes. It's not that different for economics. We can't measure demand, but we can measure the effects of demand.

*beer.

You can watch molecular bonding. Economics is more like theology... it invokes an 'invisible hand' and some 'forces' it claims exist. It's bad science, at best.

It's..... It's.... It's INTELLIGENT DESIGN! :eek:

It's..... It's.... It's INTELLIGENT DESIGN! :eek:

I hope your joking. Do you think they would have extremely prestigious institutes, like the London School of Economics, if it was all a load of nonsense like intelligent design?

Try buying a greenday ticket below retail price on ebay, the day before the concert, and then tell me that supply and demand is not real.

But such things do exist. I don't know about concert tickets specifically, because I hate live music, but you see things like that all the time. This is how arbitrageurs make their moneys.

Thank you for getting this thread back on track. As refreshing as it is to hear to everyone critiquing something they don't understand, the thread isn't about "is economics always 100% correct?" but "what are the implications of people refusing to believe the things that are?"

This is exactly the sort of attitude that encourages people to NOT listen to economists. You don't explain economic theory, or correct any of the misconceptions that may be floating around the thread, or even discuss what you think ought to be done. You just fire off a barb about people "critiquing something they don't understand" and ask about "people refusing to believe the things that are."

Most common people are not "boneheads," as your article so condescendingly put it. But there is no attempt by the economically educated to explain things to common people so they DO understand it. Most economic theory is presented as "this is how things are because it is how things are", just like the last sentence in your post. There's no effort put into explaining WHY things are the way they are, or why common people should believe a word that economists utter.

This elitism was no better exemplified than during the bailout discussion. There was no attempt by Paulson or Bernake, or anyone for that matter, to get on television and explain, simply and calmly, WHY a bailout was necessary. There was an attitude present during the whole thing that these people were the experts, and that the common man should just trust that they knew what was best and we should just do whatever they say. No dialogue was attempted; there was just a gun placed to the temple of the boneheaded common man.

What service is there in acting like your particular knowledge base makes you more educated overall than the common bonehead? No one can be educated in everything. I suspect there are a great many things that the educated economists know nothing about, things that boneheads like me are experts on. Should everyone act like an elitist prick about whatever they're knowledgeable on?

Should I go around calling everyone who supports McCain's health care plan a bonehead because they don't understand what I understand? What service does that provide? I keep my knowledge a closely guarded secret and people make uninformed decisions that I believe are bad decisions, or I share my knowledge and my reasoning for why I don't think anyone should support it, and more people are able to make a more informed choice. I certainly don't go around saying, "you shouldn't support McCain's health care plan because I don't support it and I'm an expert on health insurance."

Try increasing the discourse in this society, instead of acting like you're so much more intelligent than the masses around you because you're well educated in one particular field. Economists have done very little to engender any good will in society, primarily through acting like their knowledge base equals automatic entitlement.

But such things do exist. I don't know about concert tickets specifically, because I hate live music, but you see things like that all the time. This is how arbitrageurs make their moneys.

Yeah, but that tends to happen when some outside intervention is imposing a minimum price or some other type of market control. I'm talking about a pure supply and demand situation here, very high demand, very low supply.

This is exactly the sort of attitude that encourages people to NOT listen to economists. You don't explain economic theory, or correct any of the misconceptions that may be floating around the thread, or even discuss what you think ought to be done.

It's all there in the OP's article, most of the misconceptions have been (albeit simplistically) corrected in the article.

But such things do exist. I don't know about concert tickets specifically, because I hate live music, but you see things like that all the time. This is how arbitrageurs make their moneys.

Pretty hard for an arbitrager to make money if he is going to be selling it below the price he paid for it.

Yeah, but that tends to happen when some outside intervention is imposing a minimum price or some other type of market control. I'm talking about a pure supply and demand situation here, very high demand, very low supply.

No, it can happen when there is no intervention too. I myself have seen puts bid at above full strike price.

I can only assume that there is some idiot x-factor that is in play. This factor has not yet been quantified properly. Tho' it would explain how people thought beenie babies would make a good college fund.

No, it can happen when there is no intervention too. I myself have seen puts bid at above full strike price.


Sorry, I'm confused by this sentence.

edit: in any case, obviously for every rule there are exceptions.

Sorry, I'm confused by this sentence.

edit: in any case, obviously for every rule there are exceptions.

Basically I am referring to when somebody bids a price for something above its absolute theoretical maximum. Like paying $10 for an ordinary $5 dollar bill.

These things actually happen.

Pretty hard for an arbitrager to make money if he is going to be selling it below the price he paid for it.

Obviously the arbitrageur would be the one buying it.

Sorry I read that as put bids rather than puts bid. Well obviously there's always going to be a margin for error, but generally, unless you're a arbitrager in a complex and large market, you're going to find it difficult to find something below the equilibrium price when there's very high demand and low supply.

Obviously the arbitrageur would be the one buying it.

But then how often are concert tickets being sold below price?

Sorry I read that as put bids rather than puts bid. Well obviously there's always going to be a margin for error, but generally, unless you're a arbitrager in a complex and large market, you're going to find it difficult to find something below the equilibrium price when there's very high demand and low supply.

The thing of it is, it really should never happen. I understand it when it happens due to price discrepancy in related markets or instruments, because it isn't really risk free. And I understand it happening because once in a while people have fat fingers.

But there are obvious cases of complete idiocy that crop up more often than you expect. I don't think this aspect of how stuff gets priced has been explained. There is clearly a dumbass factor at work somewhere. This is all I am saying.

I'm really not sure you've met too many economists, most are more interested in the sheer wonder of the economic world over pushing their own agenda and, as others have said, I'm not too sure as to their overall influence, though certainly some have been very influential.

I blame politicians most, of all stripes, because someone has to make some hard decisions and since, in some sense, they're the parents of the nation, they shouldn't be pandering to gut public opinion.

I certainly hated my parents at times for the positions they took but the fact is that they only ever wanted the best for me, that was the source of everything they did regardless of whether it was right or wrong in my opinion.

Between mainstream politics and mainstream media, I'm not sure which is worse, both are about sales and popularity over and above responsibility.

I'll freely admit that I haven't met many economists.

That being said, my main issue is economists who follow a particular line for money/job or ideology, even when it is clear that their policies are detrimental to the long term benefit of the people. The same applies to leaders (politicians, business executives) in private or public spheres who set an example for the smaller/dependent groups (a lot of this could have been stopped if the groups which follow were either advised better or had more outspoken members).

You can't expect me to think highly those who help push or legitimise the causes of the current crises can could claim success when everything was seemingly (at least from the outside) hunkey dorey, yet turn on the blame game (Politicians: "We were misled!" Economists: "They didn't listen to us/The market situation fooled us!" Execs: "We were misled!") when things visably go badly? They (politicians+economists with them & execs+economists with them) are both at fault for legitimising the other.

On a sidenote: People at large should know more about basic economics (though this mess is a lot more to do with a lack of transparency/dissemination of information), not to mention politicians, instead of relying wholeheartedly on others.

Then again choosing which economic 'school' to teach to others is a problem as well.

That being said, my main issue is economists who follow a particular line for money/job or ideology, even when it is clear that their policies are detrimental to the long term benefit of the people.

Which policies are these?


You can't expect me to think highly those who help push or legitimise the causes of the current crises

Economists didn't push for sub-prime loaning, and it's not as if they approve particularly of what people like OPEC are doing either.


Then again choosing which economic 'school' to teach to others is a problem as well.

Pretty much every economic theory, barring extreme left wing collectivist theories, use basic economic principles, meta-economics if you like.

Then again choosing which economic 'school' to teach to others is a problem as well.

You could teach all four and let people decide.

I am not sure that having a bias in favor of protectionism is necessarily stupid economic thinking. However, economics is premised on the rational consumer and the rational investor. I too have faith in rational economic behavior by informed people. That being said there are so many dumbasses out there!

I hope your joking. Do you think they would have extremely prestigious institutes, like the London School of Economics, if it was all a load of nonsense like intelligent design?

Who told you that LSE was prestigious? Seriously.. have you been there?

I know your biases against the market are showing through,


Which would be, I believe, ad hominem - at best.


...and it irritates you when people point that out,


Not at all, do I look irritated?


...but economics relies heavily on experimentation. That's largely how I paid for my luxuries* during college, by being paid as a research subject by social scientists. Market simulations, negotiation simulations.


Amusingly, if you were doing that 15 years ago (and in the UK) I might have been the person conducting the research program you were doing.


As it stands, the interactions between people are real and measurable. It's not as "hard" as chemistry, but it's not theology. There is nothing measurable about theology.


The 'invisible hand' is theology.


In astrophysics, for instance, we can't see black holes. But, we can measure the effects of black holes. It's not that different for economics. We can't measure demand, but we can measure the effects of demand.

*beer.

Black holes are one thing. If you'd have cited Dark Matter you'd have had a better parallel for economics... and I think that's bad science, too.

Who told you that LSE was prestigious? Seriously.. have you been there?

Well, for starters it's usually the fourth or third best university in the UK in most guides:

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php

Secondly, they have and have had some of the best academics working there. Including people like Karl Popper, who, incidentally, pretty much invented the scientific method.

The 'invisible hand' is theology.


Firstly, people talk about the 'invisible hand' really just as useful bit of simple rhetoric for, well, laymen. Secondly, the 'invisible hand' has no metaphysical basis, so it's not a 'theology'.

Black holes are one thing. If you'd have cited Dark Matter you'd have had a better parallel for economics... and I think that's bad science, too.

How is it bad science? It patches a problem, the discrepancy between predicted amount of matter and measured amount right after the Big Bang. The difference between the the predicted and actual rotations of galaxies is another problem it covers.

Evolving theories based on anomalies, seeing these changes verified in completely different experiments...that sounds like what science is all about.

I hope your joking. Do you think they would have extremely prestigious institutes, like the London School of Economics, if it was all a load of nonsense like intelligent design?

Sorry I just gacked up some food...

Well, for starters it's usually the fourth or third best university in the UK in most guides:

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php

Secondly, they have and have had some of the best academics working there. Including people like Karl Popper, who, incidentally, pretty much invented the scientific method.

It's third or fourth, usually, because it spends well, and has good relations with employers, meaning you've got a better chance of walking straight into a job with your degree. Mainly.

But I'm just ragging on you. I have nothing against LSE, really.

But I'm just ragging on you. I have nothing against LSE, really.

I see, is this supposed to be a vague reference to Yes Minister or something? :)

How is it bad science? It patches a problem, the discrepancy between predicted amount of matter and measured amount right after the Big Bang. The difference between the the predicted and actual rotations of galaxies is another problem it covers.

Evolving theories based on anomalies, seeing these changes verified in completely different experiments...that sounds like what science is all about.

Filling holes with speculation is not science. Explaining phenomena is science. If there is a difference between your prediction, and the measurement, you need a damn good reason to start changing the model of what you are measuring.

I don't care if 'dark matter' answers every question, ever. If it's not based on observation, it's 'bad science'.

I see, is this supposed to be a vague reference to Yes Minister or something? :)

A combination of factors. Yes Minister might be involved. Some Blackadder is definitely involved. The old bit of grafitti famously transcribed from an LSE bathroom that pointed to the toiletpaper and said "Diplomas; Please Take One". It was a pop culture smorgasbord. Or something.

A combination of factors. Yes Minister might be involved. Some Blackadder is definitely involved. The old bit of grafitti famously transcribed from an LSE bathroom that pointed to the toiletpaper and said "Diplomas; Please Take One". It was a pop culture smorgasbord. Or something.

Thing is though, wasn't that because they viewed all the students there as pinko leftists or something?

Firstly, people talk about the 'invisible hand' really just as useful bit of simple rhetoric for, well, laymen. Secondly, the 'invisible hand' has no metaphysical basis, so it's not a 'theology'.

I don't think that's true... the application of 'invisible hand' principles smacks of theology, to me. It invokes a reasoning (though capricious) force that operates almost within the realm of human understanding, but that guides activity with a kind of omnibenevolent intent.

Thing is though, wasn't that because they viewed all the students there as pinko leftists or something?

I believe that was involved, and the idea that the LSE is (had been) so desparate to keep a high record of graduation/achievement that a diploma there was worth nothing more than wiping your arse... that's a measure of how hard it was to attain.

I don't think that's true... the application of 'invisible hand' principles smacks of theology, to me. It invokes a reasoning (though capricious) force that operates almost within the realm of human understanding, but that guides activity with a kind of omnibenevolent intent.

Well I don't really want to get into a debate about the invisible hand, so we're going to have to agree to disagree here, until I can be bothered to make a long post about why I think you're wrong. But I will tell you that some economists, in fact probably most these days, don't think the Invisible Hand is some sort of infallible force. I'll leave you with a link from Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz (scroll down to when he starts talking about the invisible hand).

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/globalization/?p=177

Filling holes with speculation is not science. Explaining phenomena is science. If there is a difference between your prediction, and the measurement, you need a damn good reason to start changing the model of what you are measuring.

I don't care if 'dark matter' answers every question, ever. If it's not based on observation, it's 'bad science'.

It does explain phenonoma. There was a difference between the prediction and the measurement because the model did not take into account dark matter. Relativity explained why the orbit of Mercury was not the way it was predicted, but no one accused relativity of being an ad hoc patch to cover Newton's mistakes. It's a path science often takes:

Original model
Anomaly with original model
Theory that patches up anomaly
Implications of patch verified with other experiments

This is what dark matter has done. It started as an ad hoc fix for what we thought the early universe was like. Later, we found its implications also explained the rotation of galaxies. (This is the observational basis.) It is rare that a model is completely overturned. Scientists mostly just tweak it, and then double-check these tweaks.

It does explain phenonoma. There was a difference between the prediction and the measurement because the model did not take into account dark matter. Relativity explained why the orbit of Mercury was not the way it was predicted, but no one accused relativity of being an ad hoc patch to cover Newton's mistakes. It's a path science often takes:

Original model
Anomaly with original model
Theory that patches up anomaly
Implications of patch verified with other experiments

This is what dark matter has done. It started as an ad hoc fix for what we thought the early universe was like. Later, we found its implications also explained the rotation of galaxies. (This is the observational basis.) It is rare that a model is completely overturned. Scientists mostly just tweak it, and then double-check these tweaks.

Preaching science to the career scientist?

Show me some dark matter, and we'll talk. Dark matter is a fudge factor. This calculation doesn't match that set of data - what's the difference. Deciding there IS a difference, that's good. Inventing properties for a hypothetical substance that explains those differences, not so good.

If I'm balancing my checkbook, and the numbers don't add up, I don't suddenly start inventing particles.

If I'm balancing my checkbook, and the numbers don't add up, I don't suddenly start inventing particles.

This is why you could never get a high paying job in investment banking.

This is why you could never get a high paying job in investment banking.

Crap! I think you're right!

Gimme a sec, how's this:

"The current economic slump has been caused by irradiation with newly theorised Depresson particles, the largest and heaviest of the suggested 'Bankruptide' family, which also contains the Recesson, and the smaller, erratic Corrupton..."

Preaching science to the career scientist?
I don't mean to preach at all. I am offering my understanding of how science works; feel free to critique it. But a definition of science has to be provided by one of us, otherwise arguing whether an idea is scientific or not is meaningless.

Show me some dark matter, and we'll talk. Dark matter is a fudge factor. This calculation doesn't match that set of data - what's the difference. Deciding there IS a difference, that's good. Inventing properties for a hypothetical substance that explains those differences, not so good.
How would I show it to you? It is by definition something light and all normal matter does not interact with. Gravity interacts with it, and I could show you numbers that suggest there is more mass than predicted in a galaxy, or how the amount of elements at the beginning of the universe don't match with how it shaped itself. It sounds like you're saying if you personally can't physically sense it, it doesn't exist, and that's not true at all.

If I'm balancing my checkbook, and the numbers don't add up, I don't suddenly start inventing particles.
Assuming you didn't make an arithmetic error, you would realize that there is a purchase or deposit unaccounted for. That's exactly what dark matter is: an amount of mass unaccounted for.

Since you brought it up, what is your job exactly? Where do you work?

How would I show it to you? It is by definition something light and all normal matter does not interact with. Gravity interacts with it, and I could show you numbers that suggest there is more mass than predicted in a galaxy, or how the amount of elements at the beginning of the universe don't match with how it shaped itself. It sounds like you're saying if you personally can't physically sense it, it doesn't exist, and that's not true at all.


I'm not saying that, at all - but if it's unfalsifiable, it is intrinsically 'unscientific'. It's got to be having some measurable effect, that can't be explained by some other phenomenon.

Again - your evidence is numbers, based on predictions. Well, how about 'the predictions are wrong'.

Its exactly that kind of nebulous science that blurs the boundaries between religion and theology, and gives movements like 'ID' leverage.


Assuming you didn't make an arithmetic error, you would realize that there is a purchase or deposit unaccounted for. That's exactly what dark matter is: an amount of mass unaccounted for.


That's the problem - we can't prove we didn't make an arithmetic error. Our calculations may simply be wrong for the job - and just because it 'fits', doesn't make dark matter the answer.

Indeed, I'm inclined to believe that a strict acceptance of dark matter may be a very dangerous thing, because it discourages the need to look for an answer that MAY be there.

I'm not saying that, at all - but if it's unfalsifiable, it is intrinsically 'unscientific'. It's got to be having some measurable effect, that can't be explained by some other phenomenon.

Again - your evidence is numbers, based on predictions. Well, how about 'the predictions are wrong'.
I'm a little confused: plenty of science is based on numbers, I don't see what's wrong with that. Do you mean the problem is when our observations don't match our numbers, we alter our understanding of the observations (as opposed to the method in which we got the numbers)?
That's the problem - we can't prove we didn't make an arithmetic error. Our calculations may simply be wrong for the job - and just because it 'fits', doesn't make dark matter the answer.

Indeed, I'm inclined to believe that a strict acceptance of dark matter may be a very dangerous thing, because it discourages the need to look for an answer that MAY be there.
I don't think anyone's advocating "strict acceptance of dark matter;" that really is dogmatic and unscientific. But if I were to only treat as true the scientific laws I had 100% proof of, I wouldn't believe anything. Dark matter is still a relatively new concept. It may turn out there's nothing to it, and it will join the glorious hall of scientific has-beens. It may also be verified time and time again. There's nothing wrong with not believing it actually exists, I'm sure plenty of astrophysicists are skeptical, but I do think it is a stretch to say it is unscientific or like intelligent design.

EDIT: I just remembered this is a thread about economics. Sorry for the threadjack, all.

Crap! I think you're right!

Gimme a sec, how's this:

"The current economic slump has been caused by irradiation with newly theorised Depresson particles, the largest and heaviest of the suggested 'Bankruptide' family, which also contains the Recesson, and the smaller, erratic Corrupton..."

U R getting there. But that sort of made sense. U should practice saying 'no one saw it coming' and 'these things are beyond prediction'. Also 'it is all the fault of the short sellers'.

What I am basically telling U is that U should tell them you have 'SPECIAL SCIENCE' that will make them moneys. And bugger off when it doesn't.

But I really don't think you have that in you.

To be fair, much of the reason people believe the things they do is because there are exceptions to those principles. Prices can be determined by supply and demand, but they can also be determined by a government setting a minimum or maximum price. It's a bit simplistic to say prices are determined by supply and demand anyway, it's more accurate to say that prices are determined by the manipulation of supply and demand.

Economists vs. Everyone else. The world's most one-sided soccer match ever.

The economists take the opposition apart with a sequence of perfectly judged passes, each receiving player demanding and the passing player supplying the ball at precisely the optimum time. An easy victory, despite the referee controversially disallowing several goals for "invisible hand-ball".

To be fair, much of the reason people believe the things they do is because there are exceptions to those principles. Prices can be determined by supply and demand, but they can also be determined by a government setting a minimum or maximum price. It's a bit simplistic to say prices are determined by supply and demand anyway, it's more accurate to say that prices are determined by the manipulation of supply and demand.

And you wont find a single economist that disagrees here.

U R getting there. But that sort of made sense. U should practice saying 'no one saw it coming' and 'these things are beyond prediction'. Also 'it is all the fault of the short sellers'.

What I am basically telling U is that U should tell them you have 'SPECIAL SCIENCE' that will make them moneys. And bugger off when it doesn't.

But I really don't think you have that in you.

I can honestly say I gave it a try though. :)

I'm a little confused: plenty of science is based on numbers, I don't see what's wrong with that. Do you mean the problem is when our observations don't match our numbers, we alter our understanding of the observations (as opposed to the method in which we got the numbers)?


If you need something to take to the bank,"changing the MODEL because the numbers don't add up, shouldn't be the first recourse".


I don't think anyone's advocating "strict acceptance of dark matter;" that really is dogmatic and unscientific. But if I were to only treat as true the scientific laws I had 100% proof of, I wouldn't believe anything. Dark matter is still a relatively new concept. It may turn out there's nothing to it, and it will join the glorious hall of scientific has-beens. It may also be verified time and time again. There's nothing wrong with not believing it actually exists, I'm sure plenty of astrophysicists are skeptical, but I do think it is a stretch to say it is unscientific or like intelligent design.


I'm not saying it's in the same league as ID, but it is bad science, and that lets un-science have a way in - like ID.

As for strict acceptance - I must have seen or read three dozen things this year, (presented as science-y), that pushed Dark Matter as fact. They also do the same with supermassive blackholes, and a host of other cool-but-not-necessarily-REAL science-y stuff.