Keynes vs. Hayek - Second Round

[Taco John]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GTQnarzmTOc" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[Taco John]

effing brilliant!

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

LOVE IT!!!

[Blart]

Not much of a fight. One is mainstream science, the other is fringe. It's very similar to Evolution vs ID.

Keynes - Taught in every econ course in the world.

Hayek - You could get a PHD in Econ from every single Ivy League school and never hear his name, nor any other austrian economist. They have been rejected by academia.

Here are the differences between Mainstream Economics (science) versus the Austrian School (philosophy):


Mainstream economists use the scientific method; Austrians reject it, at least for the study of the economy. Instead, they use a pre-scientific method which deduces truths from a priori knowledge.


Mainstream economists make heavy use of statistics; Austrians claim statistics have very little value, because of their extreme limitations.


Mainstream scientists believe in both objective and subjective truth (that is, absolute truth and personal truth); Austrians believe only in subjective.


Mainstream scientists seek to explain human behavior on many different levels: the gene, the individual, the group and the specie. Austrians believe that all explanations of human behavior can be traced back to the individual.


Mainstream economists often use models that use perfect starting assumptions; Austrians claim not to.


Mainstream economists believe that monopolies can arise from a number of causes; Austrians believe that only government causes monopolies.


Mainstream economists believe in fiat money; Austrians believe in the gold standard.


Mainstream economists assert that the mystery of the business cycle is deep and poorly understood; Austrians claim the government causes it.



Of course, Austrian theory is much easier to understand than mainstream science, since it carries no math or econometrics, making it a favorite among talk show hosts and internet users. With how often it's brought up here, you'd think people outside of fringe groups take it seriously.

[Taco John]

Economics is not a science Blart. Why do you keep parroting a line that is so easily debunked? Are you incapable of assimilating new information, or just more comfortable copying and pasting stuff you read somewhere else? Economics are people making transactions, making valuations that fluctuate from individual to individual. There's no science that can measure the fluctuations in these valuations. The models break down - and eventually we get what we have today.

I understand the urge to believe that there is a magic scientific formula that can be used to create wealth, but it doesn't exist.

[barryr]

Yeah, science can answer everything. Right.

[Taco John]

Yeah, science can answer everything. Right.

Science is a wonderful thing when its applied properly. Its a bow tie on a circus clown when applied where it cant be useful. Economies are fluid. There are no control groups. Every control you can possibly test for is unique to its time. It's impossible to find a control. So the science is based on guessing, not actual science. You end up with "science" like the laffer curve. You think Blart has any capacity to defend the laffer curve? I'd love to see him try.

[Taco John]

Anyone who supports Keynesianism in one breath and says "I am the 99%" in another breath is a hypocrite. Keynesianism is what got us the wealth disparity.

[elsid13]

Economics is not a science Blart. Why do you keep parroting a line that is so easily debunked? Are you incapable of assimilating new information, or just more comfortable copying and pasting stuff you read somewhere else? Economics are people making transactions, making valuations that fluctuate from individual to individual. There's no science that can measure the fluctuations in these valuations. The models break down - and eventually we get what we have today.

I understand the urge to believe that there is a magic scientific formula that can be used to create wealth, but it doesn't exist.

Economic is a science and if you ever even audited a master level course you would understand that and actually the models don't break down. The challenge with economic modelling is the scope of the variables involved. Trying to provide a unified theory on multi-actor environment is hard, but just like physic it is going to take time.

And don't confuse the current economic situation with study of the system.

[elsid13]

Anyone who supports Keynesianism in one breath and says "I am the 99%" in another breath is a hypocrite. Keynesianism is what got us the wealth disparity.

You do understand that Keynesian economic theory has been replaced with neo-classic economic theory right? And that monetary policy has replaced fiscal policy?

[TonyR]

Here's a very good read on the "is economics a science" question.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/03/17/is-economics-a-science/


And another...

http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2380

[Atwater 27]

Keynes got Pwned!

[Blart]

Economics is not a science Blart. Why do you keep parroting a line that is so easily debunked? Are you incapable of assimilating new information, or just more comfortable copying and pasting stuff you read somewhere else?

Have you tried telling that to any universities? Email the head of Econ at MIT and "debunk" the claim that economics is science. Then they can replace their econ department with a statue of Ron Paul.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Economics is not a science Blart. Why do you keep parroting a line that is so easily debunked?
OK, you want to explain why economics isn't "a science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics)"?

If you have a degree in economics, was this belief part of that curriculum?

[lonestar]

hell I thought this was about two super models Selma and someone else I have never heard of..

[epicSocialism4tw]

Have you tried telling that to any universities? Email the head of Econ at MIT and "debunk" the claim that economics is science. Then they can replace their econ department with a statue of Ron Paul.

Find me a university where Economics is taught in the School of Science.

Economics is a "science" like sociology is a "science".

People who utilize the hard sciences don't believe that any of those are true sciences. A physicist or a chemist is going to look at an economist as someone who deals in humanities or business.

Thats why economics isnt taught in unversities as a science discipline.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Here ya go...SFSU, like most universities, teaches economics as part of its business school: http://bss.sfsu.edu/economics/

This is what they teach in their science school: http://www.sfsu.edu/~cse/depts.php

[TonyR]

LOL Groundbreaking stuff there epicfail. I mean, who know that economics was taught in business schools!?!

[Atwater 27]

LMAO at Keynesian economics. Talk about epic failures.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Groundbreaking stuff there epicfail. I mean, who know that economics was taught in business schools!?!

Evidently the people who thought that economics is a science.

The only connection that it has to science is that it uses its own brand of simple mathematics and that Malthus influenced Biology in the theory evolution. Darwin made science out of the economics.

Economics is NOT science.

It is not governed by the scientific method.

[pricejj]

Not much of a fight. One is mainstream science, the other is fringe. It's very similar to Evolution vs ID.

Keynes - Taught in every econ course in the world.



You know nothing about economics, so please quit commenting on the subject. I wonder why government funded institutions would teach a subject promoting more government spending?

Keynes is a failure and his ideas are criminal, end of story.

[Taco John]

Economics is not a science. That's not to say there aren't a lot of people making a living pretending that it is and have a stake in continuing to keep the mirage alive. They surely do. But economics is no more a science than basketball is statistical analysis (http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2008/10/economics-is-not-science-nor-is.html).

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Economics is NOT science.
It is not governed by the scientific method.
Nominated for stupidest post of the year.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://plato.stanford.edu/symbols/septop.jpg
Philosophy of Economics
First published Fri Sep 12, 2003; substantive revision Tue Feb 26, 2008

“Philosophy of Economics” consists of inquiries concerning (a) rational choice, (b) the appraisal of economic outcomes, institutions and processes, and (c) the ontology of economic phenomena and the possibilities of acquiring knowledge of them. Although these inquiries overlap in many ways, it is useful to divide philosophy of economics in this way into three subject matters which can be regarded respectively as branches of action theory, ethics (or normative social and political philosophy), and philosophy of science.

Economic theories of rationality, welfare, and social choice defend substantive philosophical theses often informed by relevant philosophical literature and of evident interest to those interested in action theory, philosophical psychology, and social and political philosophy. Economics is of particular interest to those interested in epistemology and philosophy of science both because of its detailed peculiarities and because it possesses many of the overt features of the natural sciences, while its object consists of social phenomena.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Economics)
The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics,[1] [2] but officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne), is an award for outstanding contributions to the field of economics, generally regarded as one of the most prestigious awards for that field.[3] While not one of the Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895, it is consistently identified with them.

CONT...

-------------------------------------------------------------

MIT economist Peter Diamond wins Nobel Prize (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/nobel-diamond.html)
Peter A. Diamond PhD '63, Institute Professor and professor of economics at MIT, has won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for 2010. Diamond has received the award along with two co-winners, Dale T. Mortensen of Northwestern University and Christopher A. Pissarides of the London School of Economics.

In an initial announcement Monday morning, the Nobel Foundation cited the three scholars in part "for their analysis of markets with search frictions." Among many other avenues of research he has pursued in his career, Diamond helped develop studies from the late 1970s onward that examined the ways markets function over a period of time. This aspect of economic research — “search theory” — has been frequently applied to labor markets in the years since, in an attempt to see how the needs of individuals and employers are met.

Diamond received his PhD from MIT in 1963 (his thesis adviser, Robert M. Solow, also won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, in 1987). He returned to the Institute in 1966 and has remained a member of its faculty ever since.

CONT...

[Taco John]

lol

"Nominated for stupidest post of the year - here is some copy pasta."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

lol

"Nominated for stupidest post of the year - here is some copy pasta."

Define your version of "Science"...

[Taco John]

Define your version of "Science"...

My version? Isn't there only one version? Science is a defined thing, no? There aren't "versions" of science. It's a method of gaining knowledge - a 5 step approach:

Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion


The fundamental flaw that economics has in trying to be a science is that there is no way to establish controls. Humans are the subjects and their valuations fluctuate over time - even from minute to minute. If you can't keep your variable under control, you fail at producing "science." Or as TonyR's link stated it has "real limitations on knowability." It's guesswork. Science doesn't produce guesswork. Scientists don't say, "close enough, at least we tried to be systematic in our guesses to produce this vague result that we're calling 'a model.'"

There is no economic model that can predict pricing accurately. That's not to say there aren't a shortage of people who consider themselves "economic scientists" who will put together models to guess at it, and then trade and/or even be so arrogant as to set policy and interest rates based on that guess work and then use the old GWB line that "there's no way we could have known" when those models break down and put us in economic despair and disparity.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My version? Isn't there only one version? Science is a defined thing, no? There aren't "versions" of science. It's a method of gaining knowledge - a 5 step approach:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
.
So this "5 step approach", encompasses all the "steps", the correct sequence and is the only definition of science?

[Blart]

You know nothing about economics, so please quit commenting on the subject. I wonder why government funded institutions would teach a subject promoting more government spending?

Keynes is a failure and his ideas are criminal, end of story.

Economics 101 by pricejj,

1. Austrian economics were forgotten before they gained traction. Keynesian economics (deficit spending) ruled public thinking during the great depression...which is why it lasted so long.
2. Austrian economics is based on mathematics, historical analysis, and econometrics. Keynesian economics have failed empirical testing. Austrian economics is the true science of economics, and has been proven to work by the scientific method.
3. No need to look further than Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, U.S., etc. ad nauseam to prove that Keynesian economics (deficit spending by central governments) do not work in the long run. How long did it Keynesian economics take to fail? 70 years. Which is paltry considering that relatively small centralized government in the U.S. was successful for (1787-1913) 126 years before being hijacked by big government politicians and banksters.
4. It is time for the U.S citizens to get our freedom, and our true economic system back.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_stuMq1GJnrA/R1rHv67xahI/AAAAAAAAAx4/qCAblgXHKcw/s400/RonPaulBlimp.jpg

Economics is NOT science.

You've convinced me! Who cares if 99.9% of universities in the world apply crazy ideas like "math" and "empirical evidence" to economics?

Screw academia and the lamestream media, there are plenty of respectable organizations that endorse Ron Paul (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/ron-paul-endorsements.php):


The Intercollegiate Ponytail Society

Independent Recumbent Bicycle Builders Club

The Society for Creative Anachronism

Wisconsin Freegans for Gun Rights

The Autistic Olympics

Moms Against Healthcare

The National Association for the Quiet Distrust of Colored People

Public Breastfeeding Freedom League

The Libertarian Alchemist's Collective

The Jeff Goldblum Memorial Endowment for Jeff Goldblum Research

The National Federation for the Privatization of Hispanics

Bloggers for Advancing Wordcounts

The Ultimate Warrior

The Bay Area Overpass Political Graffiti Club

Lesbian Daughters of the Confederacy
Daughters of the Thermal Depolymerization Revolution


Babies for a Tax-Free America

The Powers Boothe Truther Troupe

Citizens for the Criminalization of Skateboarding

The Cat Hoarder Legal Defense Fund

The David Thorpe University of Biblical Numerology

The League of Assassins

Snake Canyon Peacekeeping

Society for the Acceptance of Public Erections

The Wesley Snipes Foundation for Ill-Advised Tax Protest

The Rush Anti-Defamation League

Uncles for Open Borders

Death Row Inmates Against School Lunches

Citizens for the Advancement of Imaginary Medical Conditions

The Society of Female Sideburns

Big Game Hunters Against the Endangered Species List

The Megaphone Nuisance League

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants

Swamp Loggers Against Net Neutrality

Coalition to Deregulate the Age of Consent

Nevada Whoremongers Guild

Brotherhood of Lone Nut Gunmen
South Park Fans for Equivocation


The Utah White Devils Motorcycle Club

North American Man-Gold Love Association

SoCal Objectivist Boardgamers Guild

Power Bottoms for Privatized Utilities

Rockapella

Free Market Diaper Enthusiasts

The Fringe Militia Friendship Network

Citizens for an FDA-Free America

Linux Admins Online Romance Club & Sysop Speed Dating Society

The American Absurdist League
The Caucasian Bow Tie Bloc


Lolicon Brothers for Fansub Freedom

Friends of Dracula
The Free Dr. Moreau Movement


The Offshore Colony of Chiptune Creators and ASCII Artists

The Deadliest Gamers

Expatriate BitCoin Enthusiasts of Kuala Lampur

Flagstaff, Arizona Suicide Club

Avuncular Cranks of America

Moms for Legalized Whaling

The Oklahoma Morgellons Choir

Olympic Peninsula Bigfoot Hunters

Grandmothers Against Steampunk

West Coast Society of Erotic Hypnotists

Ghosts for Estate Tax Abolition

The Right-to-Die Mimes

Polyamorous Moms for Smaller Government

Escort Card Distributors of Las Vegas

The Fox Mulder Fanclub

Children of the Corn

Prog Drummers for Nonstandard Time Signatures

Dads & Grads Against Public Libraries

The Indoor Helmet League

Council on Untested Meats

The Max Rebo Band

Weezer Fans for Fish & Game Reform

Gangstalking Victims Anonymous

Lesser Baldwin Brothers of America

The Ayn Rand Crossdresser's Guild

The Gold Standard Cheese of the Month Club

The National League of Crackpots

Land Barons for Legalized Slavery

The Humboldt Secessionist Society

The Unashamed Public Dog****er Alliance

Quantum Leapers for Putting Right What Once Went Wrong

Open Carry Birthday Clowns United

The American Coalition of One-Issue Stoner Parties

UFO Believers for Challenger Disaster Research

The Yosemite Valley Condo Development Group

Supporters of Newt Gingrich, Within Reason

The Tax-Free Raccoon Exchange
The Goodyear Freedom Riders of the Sky

The D-Fens Revival Church
The Private Sector Supercollider Society

The Mid Atlantic Fedora Society

The National Network of Insufferable Guys at Your Office

Arkansas Topfree BBWs

The Northern Idaho Anti-NWO Organization

The Reptilian Awareness Trust
Teapot Dome Survivors United Against the Department of the Interior

Committee for Beard Deregulation

Citizens for WWE Truth

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You've convinced me! Who cares if 99.9% of universities in the world apply crazy ideas like "math" and "empirical evidence" to economics?

That is my question. I use the financial stations (CNBC & Bloomberg) for research often since they have a myriad of economic people commenting on financial topics and economics. For years and years, some of those people have made references to economics as social science.
Is social science economics not science?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics is a social science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science) that seeks to analyze and describe the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth.[15] The word "economics" is from the Greek οἶκος [oikos], "family, household, estate," and νόμος [nomos], "custom, law," and hence means "household management" or "management of the state."

An economist is a person using economic concepts and data in the course of employment, or someone who has earned a university degree in the subject. The classic brief definition of economics, set out by Lionel Robbins in 1932, is "the science which studies human behavior as a relation between scarce means having alternative uses." Without scarcity and alternative uses, there is no economic problem. Briefer yet is "the study of how people seek to satisfy needs and wants" and "the study of the financial aspects of human behavior."

Economics has two broad branches: microeconomics, where the unit of analysis is the individual agent, such as a household or firm, and macroeconomics, where the unit of analysis is an economy as a whole. Another division of the subject distinguishes positive economics, which seeks to predict and explain economic phenomena, from normative economics, which orders choices and actions by some criterion; such orderings necessarily involve subjective value judgments.

Since the early part of the 20th century, economics has focused largely on measurable quantities, employing both theoretical models and empirical analysis. Quantitative models, however, can be traced as far back as the physiocratic school. Economic reasoning has been increasingly applied in recent decades to other social situations such as politics, law, psychology, history, religion, marriage and family life, and other social interactions.

This paradigm crucially assumes (1) that resources are scarce because they are not sufficient to satisfy all wants, and (2) that "economic value" is willingness to pay as revealed for instance by market (arms' length) transactions. Rival heterodox schools of thought, such as institutional economics, green economics, Marxist economics, and economic sociology, make other grounding assumptions. For example, Marxist economics assumes that economics primarily deals with the exchange of value, and that labor (human effort) is the source of all value.

The expanding domain of economics in the social sciences has been described as economic imperialism.

----------------------------
From Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20science)...

Definition of SOCIAL SCIENCE
1
: a branch of science that deals with the institutions and functioning of human society and with the interpersonal relationships of individuals as members of society
2
: a science (as economics or political science) dealing with a particular phase or aspect of human society

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You've convinced me! Who cares if 99.9% of universities in the world apply crazy ideas like "math" and "empirical evidence" to economics?


ROFL! ^5

[Popcorn Sutton]

1. Can mathematics predict human behavior?
2. Is human behavior an important factor in economics?

http://mises.org/daily/926

While living near Greenville, South Carolina, a couple of years ago, I attended a dinner that featured the late Sherwin Rosen of the University of Chicago as its speaker. Rosen, who had been a colleague of F.A. Hayek's at Chicago, spoke that evening on Austrian economics--or, at least, he attempted to talk about Austrian economics. In a short time, he had clearly demonstrated that he understood very little about that discipline, and he wound up giving a caricature of Austrianism.

During the question-and-answer session that followed, someone asked about the effectiveness of organizations like the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rosen replied that the LVMI really was not particularly effective in economic circles, especially since it represents Austrian economics, something that, according to Rosen, "fails the market test."

Many of us who have received mainstream training in economics but call ourselves Austrians (or at least fellow travelers) have heard this "market test" criticism time and again. The gist of the charge is as follows: The economics profession over the years has accepted those ideas that work and has rejected ideas that do not work. Whatever is "good" in Austrian economics has already been incorporated into the greater body of economic literature, so there is no need for a special division of "Austrian" economics.

Mainstream economists are especially critical of Austrians for their lack of desire to incorporate mathematics in general, and multivariable calculus in particular, into their economic analysis. The criticism goes something like this: It does not matter whether or not mathematics is the most appropriate tool to describe economic human action. Since the majority of people in the economics profession use math for their work, it has passed the "market test" and, therefore, is the correct tool to use. In the vernacular, everybody uses math because everybody uses it. One hundred thousand economists cannot be wrong, so the belief goes.

Given this "standard" approach, it is not surprising, then, that the "top" economic journals look more like a collection of applied mathematics than anything resembling economics. People who do well in math are more likely to be published in the "best" journals than people who are not as adept in that area. Because publication in these journals is the key to tenure and promotion in the top-flight economics departments, one can see quickly that some people who may have a good understanding of economics but either are not math whizzes or choose not to use math, will not be placed in these most coveted slots, and, thus, are relegated to the "outer darkness" of smaller and less prestigious institutions. (I do not know if there is more "wailing and gnashing of teeth" in the "bigs" than in the "smalls.")

It is not surprising, then, that many in the mainstream claim that Austrians disapprove of the extensive use of mathematics in economic analysis because they are unable to do math themselves. My guess is that most folks, including myself, who can survive a modern economics graduate program, are at least competent if not proficient in mathematics, so I am not sure that charge can stick.

Furthermore, the most vociferous critics of math in economics, Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, were both well versed in mathematics, Rothbard entering Columbia University at age 16 as a statistics major. Rothbard and Mises did not build mathematical theoretical models because they believed it was inappropriate for economic analysis, not because they lacked mathematical competence.

What is the problem, then, of using math for economics, and why are Austrians opposed to such a methodology? In a word, math is not an appropriate tool to describe human action. As Mises and Rothbard often pointed out, one cannot quantify human action. This does not mean that people do not engage in activity in which mathematics is not important, but rather that we cannot accurately use math to describe how humans behave.

Take the simple "Lagrangian Multiplier" that we use in basic graduate-school economics to "explain" consumer behavior. Here, economists construct an equation in which one’s utility depends upon, say, goods "x" and "y." The ability to accumulate such goods is constrained by one’s income and the prices paid for the goods.

In determining the "optimal" state that the consumer can enjoy, one uses tools of multivariable calculus to reach a point where "equilibrium" is reached. At that point, the marginal utility of good "x" divided by the price of good "x" is equal to the marginal utility of good "y" over the price of that good. (I have not done the mathematical work on this page for obvious reasons.)

The problem here is that this "solution" is nonsense. Utility (or consumer satisfaction) cannot be measured in cardinal terms. There is no way to take a cardinal measure of someone’s satisfaction. I can say that I like chocolate more than vanilla, but I cannot put that preference in cardinal numbers. An attempt to do so is nothing short of an exercise in fraud.[1]

When asked why they engage in such activities, economists usually admit that they cannot take cardinal measures of individual utility, nor can they compare the utility of one individual to another in cardinal terms. However, they then do it anyway, saying that while their activities are technically wrong, they pass the "market test" in economic analysis. People, they add, will "act as though they are engaging in measurement of cardinal utility," even if they really are not. In other words, even if something is not true, we pretend that it is true and act accordingly.

In The Failure of the New Economics, Henry Hazlitt declares

. . . if a mathematical equation is not precise, it is worse than worthless; it is a fraud. It gives our results a merely spurious precision. It gives an illusion of knowledge in place of the candid confession of ignorance, vagueness, or uncertainty which is the beginning of wisdom. (p. 99)

In using mathematics as the main tool for advancing economic thought, economists must operate on the assumption that human action adheres to a constant mathematical formula. While, as Rothbard and Mises note, that might be appropriate for the physical sciences, it is not appropriate when describing how humans behave.

This is not to say that the use of logic is inappropriate in economic science. Indeed, the Austrian methodology draws heavily upon logical inferences in deducing economic science from the initial observation that people act. Furthermore, mathematics is a branch of logic.

However, while one can make logical deductions in observations of human action, it is impossible to make those deductions with the precision that mathematical reasoning requires. It is one thing to say (again) that I like chocolate better than vanilla; it is quite another to claim that a bit of chocolate gives me 6.7 "utils" of pleasure and that the same amount of vanilla yields only 4.2 "utils." The former way of "measuring" my preferences is entirely appropriate. That latter method, however, is not only inappropriate, but also downright silly. Yet, that is what the economic "mainstream" claims passes the "market test." One can only be thankful that mainstream economists are not in charge of building bridges, highways, and other structures.

[Taco John]

You've convinced me! Who cares if 99.9% of universities in the world apply crazy ideas like "math" and "empirical evidence" to economics?




You can apply math and statistics to anything - that doesn't make it a science. There's no science in the world that can derive value. It's a subjective judgement made by the individual. The economy isn't a bunch of random activity. It's human action in progress. It's individuals determining needs and using their subjective judgement to determine how to meet those needs, and what they will pay for it. There's no science that can measure that. Oh, you're right. They try to plan and forecast and centrally plan. They fail miserably in the long run. We're witnessing it today.

It's amusing to me though that you can simply say the word "math" and think you've won the argument with some enlightened point. Groupthink is a wonderful thing.

[Blart]

If modern economics (and by that I mean the last 100 years) fail so miserably in the long run, why do universities continue to explore the subject? Why are recessions rarer, and recoveries quicker than they were before central banking?

I really find it hard to swallow that we should turn the clock back a century and throw away everything we've learned.

[mosca]

If modern economics (and by that I mean the last 100 years) fail so miserably in the long run, why do universities continue to explore the subject? Why are recessions rarer, and recoveries quicker than they were before central banking?

I really find it hard to swallow that we should turn the clock back a century and throw away everything we've learned.
Except for the recent recession, that was the longest since the 1930s. Yeah, the one that the National Bureau of Economic Research actually claimed ended in June 2009. Yup, some of those economic intellectuals are sure grounded in reality.

Longest recession since 1930s ended in June 2009, group says (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/20/business/la-fi-recession-20100920)

[Blart]

That's not before central banking. Regardless, our deeply flawed, conservative-built economic system now is a hay ride compared to the constant recessions during the free banking era (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Free_Banki ng_Era_to_the_Great_Depression).

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You can apply math and statistics to anything - that doesn't make it a science. There's no science in the world that can derive value. It's a subjective judgement made by the individual. The economy isn't a bunch of random activity. It's human action in progress. It's individuals determining needs and using their subjective judgement to determine how to meet those needs, and what they will pay for it. There's no science that can measure that. Oh, you're right. They try to plan and forecast and centrally plan. They fail miserably in the long run. We're witnessing it today.

It's amusing to me though that you can simply say the word "math" and think you've won the argument with some enlightened point. Groupthink is a wonderful thing.
Is there something in this post that shows why economics and the evolution of economics are not science (even though 1000s of people more intelligent and educated than you and I consider it to be)?

Or are you attempting to rewrite the definition?

---------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/interface/mwol2010_mw_logo_header.gif
eco·nom·ics (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics?show=0&t=1324996374)
noun pl but singular or pl in constr \ˌe-kə-ˈnä-miks, ˌē-kə-\
Definition of ECONOMICS
1
a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services b : economic theory, principles, or practices <sound economics>


Dictionary.com, LLC
ec·o·nom·ics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics)
   /ˌɛkəˈnɒmɪks, ˌikə-/ Show Spelled[ek-uh-nom-iks, ee-kuh-]
noun
1.
( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

TheFreeDictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/economics)
3,454,081,235 visitors served.
ec·o·nom·ics (k-nmks, k-)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

[mhgaffney]

Never cease to be amazed by the twaddle on this board that passes for serious discussion.

The major issue is the war econmy -- the fact we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. Five or six major wars -- yet tax cuts for the rich? This is insanity.

Please correct me if I am wrong -- but Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate calling for a major roll back of "defense" spending.

He's also the only candidate calling for an audit of the fed.

These are the big issues. Next to these the other issues are trivial.

Yet we see trivia discussed here alla time. What's the matta with you clowns?

I am not a Republican - but I could support RP.

MHG

[Atwater 27]

Is there something in this post that shows why economics and the evolution of economics are not science (even though 1000s of people more intelligent and educated than you and I consider it to be)?

Or are you attempting to rewrite the definition?

---------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/styles/default/images/interface/mwol2010_mw_logo_header.gif
eco·nom·ics (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economics?show=0&t=1324996374)
noun pl but singular or pl in constr \ˌe-kə-ˈnä-miks, ˌē-kə-\
Definition of ECONOMICS
1
a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services b : economic theory, principles, or practices <sound economics>


Dictionary.com, LLC
ec·o·nom·ics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/economics)
   /ˌɛkəˈnɒmɪks, ˌikə-/ Show Spelled[ek-uh-nom-iks, ee-kuh-]
noun
1.
( used with a singular verb ) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

TheFreeDictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/economics)
3,454,081,235 visitors served.
ec·o·nom·ics (k-nmks, k-)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

Liberalism is to economics as Sunni is to Shiite

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Liberalism is to economics as Sunni is to ShiiteNominated for stupidest post of the year.

[Odysseus]

You do understand that Keynesian economic theory has been replaced with neo-classic economic theory right? And that monetary policy has replaced fiscal policy?

The problem is we don't have economists running our economy we have congressmen and congresswomen.

Our leaders are not smart enough to understand unintended consequences. They are focused on getting elected, providing spin, or truncating the larger truth hiding in plain view.

We need to get away from numbers as well as learn how numbers can be utilized to uncover a clearer course. It is confusing to people to realize how complicate economics really has become.

How do you have a conversation about equilibrium without equilibrium?

[pricejj]

Keynes - Taught in every econ course in the world.

Hayek - You could get a PHD in Econ from every single Ivy League school and never hear his name, nor any other austrian economist. They have been rejected by academia.


I wonder why government funded institutions aren't teaching that excessive government spending is destructive?

It's called "biting the hand that feeds you".

[alkemical]

I wonder why government funded institutions aren't teaching that excessive government spending is destructive?

It's called "biting the hand that feeds you".

http://www.disinfo.com/2012/01/rick-santorum-opposes-liberal-indoctrination-at-college/

[Bronco Yoda]

You guys will argue about anything.....and I mean ANYTHING!

LMAO!!!!




<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/icB-jCtkQ3E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nominated for stupidest post of the year.

Consider the source. Ha!

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>