Keynes vs. Hayek - Second Round

[Taco John]

[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]

Originally Posted by barryr

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/2011/03/1...ics-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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

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"?

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]

Originally Posted by Blart

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TonyR

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Economics is NOT science.
It is not governed by the scientific method.

Nominated for stupidest post of the year.

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

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
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
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]

Originally Posted by Taco John

lol

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

Define your version of "Science"...