Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why economists know stuff
#1
and why it is wrong to set up a strawman that states that economics is not a science, when trying to refute an economic argument that is backed up by solid research:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/
Reply
#2
He's a straaaaaawwwmaaaaan waiting in the sky
He thinks he's fucking clever
And he thinks he blows our minds
Reply
#3
Not a fuckingain
Reply
#4
What this bloke knows, of use, you could write on the back of a postage stamp with a very thick pen.
Reply
#5
I think we are pretty sure by now that you think economics is a science. A lot of economists believe it is a science and a lot don't.
There is even a Nobel prize for economic sciences though it is kept separate from the real sciences.

Even in this article it states that economics is an inexact science - inexact means maybe, not quite certain but we have a lot of stats and maths to get us to the answer which may or may not be right.

To keep banging on about it might make some think that you are not quite secure in the fact that even you think it's a 'real' science.

I think the real answer is - nobody fucking cares!!!!
Reply
#6
(04-13-2017, 06:10 AM)Strawman Wrote: I think we are pretty sure by now that you think economics is a science. A lot of economists believe it is a science and a lot don't.
There is even a Nobel prize for economic sciences though it is kept separate from the real sciences.

Even in this article it states that economics is an inexact science - inexact means maybe, not quite certain but we have a lot of stats and maths to get us to the answer which may or may not be right.

To keep banging on about it might make some think that you are not quite secure in the fact that even you think it's a 'real' science.

I think the real answer is - nobody fucking cares!!!!
People do care, because the principle consideration people think about when they cast their vote is the economy stupid. Hence an assessment of economic outcomes, based on evidence based policy is very important.
Reply
#7
(04-13-2017, 07:18 AM)logic1 Wrote:
(04-13-2017, 06:10 AM)Strawman Wrote: I think we are pretty sure by now that you think economics is a science. A lot of economists believe it is a science and a lot don't.
There is even a Nobel prize for economic sciences though it is kept separate from the real sciences.

Even in this article it states that economics is an inexact science - inexact means maybe, not quite certain but we have a lot of stats and maths to get us to the answer which may or may not be right.

To keep banging on about it might make some think that you are not quite secure in the fact that even you think it's a 'real' science.

I think the real answer is - nobody fucking cares!!!!
People do care, because the principle consideration people think about when they cast their vote is the economy stupid. Hence an assessment of economic outcomes, based on evidence based policy is very important.

Actually I meant nobody cares if it's a science or not. 

No argument that people care about the economy and economic outcomes, however the recent predictions of outcomes have been mostly completely inaccurate, and for that reason a lot of people now believe that economic forecasting is a very inaccurate 'science' and that both politicians and economists could be accused of being continually wrong in their predictions.
Reply
#8
Forecasts of all types are similar to printed reports, in that they are out of date a just a few minutes after production

I work on the basis that there are two types of forecast, one is wrong and the other one is lucky
Reply
#9
Actually it's an art form; abstract carried out by p**s artists.
Reply
#10
It isn't a science.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)