From: bigger@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Marcel Bigger)
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: 27 Jan 93 01:30:25 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <C1FrD9.I58@news.cso.uiuc.edu> twng7309@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tomas W Nonnenmacher) writes:
>>>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



Absolutely. However, there was a kind of economics before the Depression and
an other kind of economics appeared after the Depression. I am quite sure that
at the next great Depression still a completely other kind of economics will
appear. Or does economics claim to ensure us from 30 % unemployment in
the future? Economics will not have a continuing long term development,
there will always be revolutions in the field which disconnect previous
gains made.


P.S.:
For university students it is not important if economics is a science or not,
a rather unimportant question afterall. Economics is such a wonderfull
tool to let the student's mind work: to analyze, to hypothesize, to formulate,
to move from fixed points ahead to arrive at a thoughtful conclusion.
Training an "apparatus of the mind" (J.M.Keynes) is the hallmark of a university
education. (For many of my fellow students it is more the "prospect of
money" that makes a university education such attractive.) 
It seems to me that because economics has such an interesting
characteristic it has survived as an important field in academia.

Marcel W. Bigger
stud. oec.




>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,alt.politics.clinton