From: twng7309@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tomas W Nonnenmacher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,sci.economics,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: What is economics?
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:43:56 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>>In article <1993Jan19.092005.11677@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>
>>...  You sound awfully bitter about social
>>scientists in general.  Our increased knowledge of the economic process 
>>has lessened some of the shocks our economy has received.  Take for instance
>>the last stock market crash.  No Great Depression ensued. So what's the
>>"big lie" all about anyway?
>
>The big lie is that they are "sciences" capable of bringing mankind more
>understanding of itself and hence improve its lot.  I have no doubt that 
>some such studies are necessary, but by failing to understand (or
>ignoring to tell the public) what they're really doing and where they're
>going, they're stagnating are only doing a job of preserving the status quo
>whose quality is at best random.

My reply to this is that economics has improved mankind's lot dramatically.
Look at pre and post Keynesian Revolution business statistics, and compare.
Do we have 30% unemployment?  No.  Do we have the wild fluctuations of the
1890's, early 1920's or 1930's?  No.  Is there a much more stable business
atmosphere to work in?  Yes.  This can not all be attributed to the 
adveancement of the science of economics, but much of it can.  >
>>>Please, can anyone tell me, yes or no, to this simple statement that I will
>>>repeat: economists only do one of two kinds of work: 1.  Rigorous,
>>>mathematical analysis of imaginary systems that rarely have any
>>>applications to real life; and 2. Unscientific, unrigorous, disagreeing
>>>analysis of real systems giving rise to conflicting and misleading
>>>conclusions making impact on real people's lives.
>>
>>No, that's not all professional economists do.  Theorists do the first.
>>Politicians do the second.  There's considerable research being done
>>as to why things are the way they are, and what we can do about it.  In
>>many cases there is no single correct answer, nor is there a clear cut
>>wrong one.  Several policy prescriptions may get you the same good (or bad)
>>result.  What you call unscientific, unrigorous disagreeing is for the
>>most part based on the earlier rigorous mathematical analysis. 
>
>The crucial thing is that the link between the rigorous mathematical
>analysis and economic prescriptions is a joke.  Otherwise we'd all
>live happily ever after.  I don't care who's responsible for what.
>I only see the whole thing not working, and economists are responsible
>for the failure because only they had the knowledge to foresee this
>failure.  But they opted for silent complacency rather than reforming
>their field.
>
  Ok, I see your point.  I don't think you'll find many economists though
that think life works according to a mathematical equation.  It doesn't,
and only the most removed of us realize that.  However, there are instances
where applied micro comes awfully close to approximating real world
phenomena, and explains it in a logical comprehensive way.  Look at the field
of Industrial Organization for examples.  You seem to think that economists
as a profession spend their time making useless mathematical models or
broad generalizations of how the economy will be.  I claim that this simply
isn't the case.                                         
  There is a definite lag between what happens in the head of a theorist, and
useful economic research.  But you'd be surprised at how much of the theory
is actually applied eventually.
-Tom
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal,rec.arts.tv