Two economists tried to replicate a bunch of published economic studies — and the results were distu

[Banjo]

A new economics paper is making the rounds this week, and it's got some pretty damning conclusions for the state of the whole subject.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fede...the-replicability-of-economic-studies-2015-10

 

[jonny1lot]

All Economists should be required to submit their claimed results to ET and let us judge the robustness of their data.

 

[cdcaveman]

they use whatever bias information needed to tout their policies.. most likely of taxation/confiscation, and inflation(hidden tax)

 

[der_kommissar]

they use whatever bias information needed to tout their policies.. most likely of taxation/confiscation, and inflation(hidden tax)

Indeed. The apologists then refer to these biased studies to try and paint their opposition as "conspiracy theorists". It's all become downright comical.

 

[NoVoodooHere]

A new economics paper is making the rounds this week, and it's got some pretty damning conclusions for the state of the whole subject.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fede...the-replicability-of-economic-studies-2015-10

LOL economics, a "science"

 

[NoVoodooHere]

they use whatever bias information needed to tout their policies.. most likely of taxation/confiscation, and inflation(hidden tax)

more politics than academics

 

[newwurldmn]

LOL economics, a "science"

it's called the "dismal science"

 

[NoVoodooHere]

it's called the "dismal science"

There was a daily show episode years ago where the guest compared economics in a nobel prize context to monkeys throwing theses at one another. Wish I could find that clip for you.

To me the glaring problem is precisely the lack of a scientific approach, so by definition economics cannot be a science because it is based on theories validated by abstract empirical studies (or not at all), as opposed to being derived from "first principles" - Those things that cannot be denied. For example in physics and science everything we accept (notwithstanding of course the purely theoretical stuff) starts from physical laws, eg, gravity and temperature can be measured... laws of motion... etc...

Some things in the monetary system could be defined, eg, what is a currency? what are people? Those are the fundamental starting points to a scientific theory and framework for a science. I once set out on a mission to do this and came up with a model of inflation. Go figure

 

[der_kommissar]

And then we can get around to the "dual-mandate" pablum, which is also predicated on a bunch of "statistics" that most likely cannot be reproduced...And even when the conditions set out years in advance are met, an entire new set of "conditions" warrant a different action...only the most delusional apologists continue to defend this insanity.

 

[cdcaveman]

There was a daily show episode years ago where the guest compared economics in a nobel prize context to monkeys throwing theses at one another. Wish I could find that clip for you.

To me the glaring problem is precisely the lack of a scientific approach, so by definition economics cannot be a science because it is based on theories validated by abstract empirical studies (or not at all), as opposed to being derived from "first principles" - Those things that cannot be denied. For example in physics and science everything we accept (notwithstanding of course the purely theoretical stuff) starts from physical laws, eg, gravity and temperature can be measured... laws of motion... etc...

Some things in the monetary system could be defined, eg, what is a currency? what are people? Those are the fundamental starting points to a scientific theory and framework for a science. I once set out on a mission to do this and came up with a model of inflation. Go figure

Read rothbard.. Von Mises... Or any of the like.... This is the most sound basis for economic thought... Everything else is based in inflation and government control