Jan 16 2013: "It is the lack of insight into human behavior what makes economic models so far off these days. Some of the mechanisms that have been discovered and established over the past centuries are quite astonishing, but with the component of individual preferences remaining not fully uncovered yet, a model can never be entirely accurate."
This is true of all social sciences, the difference is psychologists and sociologists, no matter how flawed they are, at least try to improve as a whole: economists on the other hand seem to have a hard time criticizing traditions and accepting new research. It is no coincidence economists are so much more bitterly divided than psychologists and sociologists.
Jan 16 2013: Damn right it's a stereotype, not all economists are like that, some dare to say "I don't know", others even do actual research to see if long held beliefs have any basis in reality, but too many in high places do fit the stereotype.
Jan 16 2013: It's not that economists themselves have a vested interest in supporting big business, but the people who wrote their textbooks and invented the theories did. It's really striking how much economists accept for facts when there has never been any research to support it, or worse, when the research that does exist points to the contrary. In science you can't get away with that, in economics you ca, there is so little self-correction in economics.
When an economics textbook says "human beings always try to maximize material profit in their interactions" this applies to the sort of people that go into economics or big business, but not the general population, still this assumption was penned down without any research into it having been done and now that there has been some research to the contrary, that research is flatly ignored.
Jan 16 2013: It is my experience: economists think they are gods, they don't rationally take into account the error margin of a scenario, they're like the political pundits who got the election wrong, they'll just make up some excuse of why their predictions were wrong and then proceed to make new predictions of things that are far too uncertain for anyone to make.
Jan 16 2013: Austrian economics is actually the worst, Keynesian is not a science either, but Austrians are the worst: they don't use math, they don't accept evidence that contradicts their views, they don't even go looking for such evidence. They're a religion.
Jan 16 2013: "Why do you think there aren't as many vocal leaders as there has been throughout history?"
Because history is long. Great leaders have accumulated over the course of history, they didn't all live at the same time, so why do you expect a lot of great leaders to all live in this time?
Jan 15 2013: "we pay half of our incomes to the state"
That's not even true in Sweden...
"police does not work. healthcare either somewhat works or does not work,
look at how it worked out so far. public schools rob everyone a decade of their lives, college consumes another half, and the result is atrocious."
Do you happen to live in Somalia? If not, go there and see for yourself how much of a difference even an imperfect system makes vs the law of the jungle. Most people wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for state provided modern medicine and wouldn't be able to read if it wasn't for state provided education.
"to learn useless "sciences"?"
Without which most of us wouldn't be alive. I find it striking that you can complain about sluggish economic growth and at the same time declare science useless. Without science economic growth would be exactly 0 forever.
"our children do not learn how to mobilize creativity, effort and hard work to achieve goals"
You sound like a priest. Besides, how many creativity would children learn in the coalmines or cornfields?
Worst of all you decry all institutions except the institution of property. Why do you think it's unnatural for there to be environmental legislations protecting everyone while you accept without question that a man can own land (who gets to decide who gets what piece of land?) and that children must be punished or rewarded for the failures or successes of their parents.
In your world a rich person would keep all the freedoms he has now and gain more, a poor person would lose ones like being able to go to sleep at peace, knowing they won't go bankrupt if they get in an accident tomorrow, the freedom to do things in spare time (80 hour workweeks are not necessary with a decent minimum wage) and gain "freedoms" along the line of "freedom to choose to drink from a polluted water source" and "freedom to quit and die in the gutter when your boss is abusing you". You define freedom way too selectively to take seriously.
Jan 15 2013: "I think economists can come to wrong conclusions and often do, because prediction is complex in social systems."
That's the difference between the scientist and the economist: if you ask a meteorologist whether it's going to rain on 16 October 2019 he will tell you he cannot make that prediction, when you ask an economist whether the stock of Microsoft will go up on 16 October 3019 he will give you a 30 minute explanation of why exactly Microsoft stock will go up or down on 16 October 3019.
Jan 15 2013: Economics is not a science. It simply doesn't meet the requirements of empiricism, falsifiability and self-correction. There are economists out there who work scientifically but the field as a whole is not scientific.
"Another good example of how economists bend the reality to serve their cunning aims, is how they insist that at the time of mass unemployment, the retirement age should be ... extended! In other words economists propose that where there is a shortage of jobs, those jobs which could be made available, will not be available. Is that standing the world on its head or what?"
In the world of economics natural resources are endless, like manna from the heavens, so economists are surprised when all those unemployed "lazy bums" don't go to work and produce more stuff (though some unemployment in the West is caused by the Chinese working 60 hour work weeks). The rate of automation has surpassed the rate of learning how to make more crap per liter of petroleum, but since most economists wouldn't know the difference between a protein and a photon, they don't understand what's going on and start pulling bogus explanations from their behinds.
TEDCred score: +34.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
This is true of all social sciences, the difference is psychologists and sociologists, no matter how flawed they are, at least try to improve as a whole: economists on the other hand seem to have a hard time criticizing traditions and accepting new research. It is no coincidence economists are so much more bitterly divided than psychologists and sociologists.
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
When an economics textbook says "human beings always try to maximize material profit in their interactions" this applies to the sort of people that go into economics or big business, but not the general population, still this assumption was penned down without any research into it having been done and now that there has been some research to the contrary, that research is flatly ignored.
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
A comment on Conversation: Why do you think there aren't as many vocal leaders as there has been throughout history?
Because history is long. Great leaders have accumulated over the course of history, they didn't all live at the same time, so why do you expect a lot of great leaders to all live in this time?
A reply on Conversation: Should there be different income tax rates in a country where opportunities are fully equal but incomes are highly unequal?
That's not even true in Sweden...
"police does not work. healthcare either somewhat works or does not work,
look at how it worked out so far. public schools rob everyone a decade of their lives, college consumes another half, and the result is atrocious."
Do you happen to live in Somalia? If not, go there and see for yourself how much of a difference even an imperfect system makes vs the law of the jungle. Most people wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for state provided modern medicine and wouldn't be able to read if it wasn't for state provided education.
"to learn useless "sciences"?"
Without which most of us wouldn't be alive. I find it striking that you can complain about sluggish economic growth and at the same time declare science useless. Without science economic growth would be exactly 0 forever.
"our children do not learn how to mobilize creativity, effort and hard work to achieve goals"
You sound like a priest. Besides, how many creativity would children learn in the coalmines or cornfields?
Worst of all you decry all institutions except the institution of property. Why do you think it's unnatural for there to be environmental legislations protecting everyone while you accept without question that a man can own land (who gets to decide who gets what piece of land?) and that children must be punished or rewarded for the failures or successes of their parents.
In your world a rich person would keep all the freedoms he has now and gain more, a poor person would lose ones like being able to go to sleep at peace, knowing they won't go bankrupt if they get in an accident tomorrow, the freedom to do things in spare time (80 hour workweeks are not necessary with a decent minimum wage) and gain "freedoms" along the line of "freedom to choose to drink from a polluted water source" and "freedom to quit and die in the gutter when your boss is abusing you". You define freedom way too selectively to take seriously.
A reply on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
That's the difference between the scientist and the economist: if you ask a meteorologist whether it's going to rain on 16 October 2019 he will tell you he cannot make that prediction, when you ask an economist whether the stock of Microsoft will go up on 16 October 3019 he will give you a 30 minute explanation of why exactly Microsoft stock will go up or down on 16 October 3019.
A comment on Conversation: Is economics a science aimed at deceiving people?
"Another good example of how economists bend the reality to serve their cunning aims, is how they insist that at the time of mass unemployment, the retirement age should be ... extended! In other words economists propose that where there is a shortage of jobs, those jobs which could be made available, will not be available. Is that standing the world on its head or what?"
In the world of economics natural resources are endless, like manna from the heavens, so economists are surprised when all those unemployed "lazy bums" don't go to work and produce more stuff (though some unemployment in the West is caused by the Chinese working 60 hour work weeks). The rate of automation has surpassed the rate of learning how to make more crap per liter of petroleum, but since most economists wouldn't know the difference between a protein and a photon, they don't understand what's going on and start pulling bogus explanations from their behinds.