But yet if one is of the "Austrian" school they are ridiculed
Two economists tried to replicate a bunch of published economic studies — and the results were distu
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
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
I agree with you. It's really a form of philosophy like business, psychology, and other soft sciences.
This is what has happened to the field since people like Paul Krugman started getting air and print time.
This hard lined socialist gets his education from other Bill Alinsky followers, then gets accolades from those who (these days) bestow such honors - like Nobel prizes - upon those who stand on their soapboxes espousing unworkable theories that sound politically correct. After the awards are handed out, the resumes get beefed up and these false prophets of the left score even more air and print time and jobs at prestigious universities - where the falsehoods continue to be propagated to the next generation.
When this is the system that educates an economist, of course they are going to choose to embrace data that fits their political viewpoint. The question is whether they are naive enough to believe it themselves or this is just their "work persona" to rake in huge salaries. I don't see Krugman trying to solve income inequality by handing any of his money to someone that makes much less.
This hard lined socialist gets his education from other Bill Alinsky followers, then gets accolades from those who (these days) bestow such honors - like Nobel prizes - upon those who stand on their soapboxes espousing unworkable theories that sound politically correct. After the awards are handed out, the resumes get beefed up and these false prophets of the left score even more air and print time and jobs at prestigious universities - where the falsehoods continue to be propagated to the next generation.
When this is the system that educates an economist, of course they are going to choose to embrace data that fits their political viewpoint. The question is whether they are naive enough to believe it themselves or this is just their "work persona" to rake in huge salaries. I don't see Krugman trying to solve income inequality by handing any of his money to someone that makes much less.
True
True!!! I find most income inequality studied all come from socialists... They make aggressive claims against free market capitalism.. They base their claims on actual failed interventionism against free market capitalism... When the two are opposites... Really making you realize how skewed the fundamental idea of free market really is in these peoples thick heads.... They typical show how the market fails to help poor people whilst omitting the statist interventionism that actually lead to the disparity not the free market.... The current banking system is not capitalism... It's statist aligned cartels... The banks are essentially an apparatus of the state ... We are currently in economic socialism... As things centralize more and more things will just get worse...
...And just like that... Thread becomes a platform for posturing one's political views
The irony is palpable
The irony is palpable
It doesn't take much for me... Sorry haha
^ forgiven
soooo,,, 2 economists walk into a bar...
soooo,,, 2 economists walk into a bar...
Sorry man. It sucks I know. It's sad how so much has become political now...I hate it. It's gotten so bad that every time we have bad weather, I just think how everyone blames Republicans for global warming - oh wait that's "climate change" now. Please excuse me, I'm in the DC area. It's tough here, I gotta get out.
In general all of the 'research' that comes out of academic institutions should be highly suspect.
The 'professors' at academic institutions work under a 'publish or perish' imperative. They need to get papers published on a regular basis to keep their jobs and they need to be highly published in order to be promoted. This is not just Economics but extends into the hard sciences.
e.g. you can easily perform a 'mind experiment' that confirms a newly accepted theory. You can turn the mind experiment into 'data' (along with expected standard deviations) with graph paper and a pencil. Then you write up the data and submit it to a scientific journal as original research.
If you are a smart cookie the reviewers for the journal will have no way of determining if you really did the work or not. If you confirm an accepted theory you will not be subject to much in the way of skepticism and you can then get on with teaching your classes, pompously bloviating to your students, get promoted and be asked to give lectures at scientific meetings. NO ONE WILL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
I once worked at an academic institution. While there I read an article by a professor there and since the professor's lab was next door to mine I wondered how he did the research he claimed to have done without my noticing much activity. I discretely went and looked at his records and lo and behold he never obtained the materials he would have needed to actually do the research he claimed. He invented the whole thing. It's a lot more common than you think. I would guess that 50% or more of academic research is just made up bull shit. (of course I will have to do a study to confirm that... I wonder if I can get a government grant??)
http://splice-bio.com/publish-or-perish-why-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research/
"Amgen set out to repeat 53 key discoveries in the field of cancer and succeeded in only 6"
The 'professors' at academic institutions work under a 'publish or perish' imperative. They need to get papers published on a regular basis to keep their jobs and they need to be highly published in order to be promoted. This is not just Economics but extends into the hard sciences.
e.g. you can easily perform a 'mind experiment' that confirms a newly accepted theory. You can turn the mind experiment into 'data' (along with expected standard deviations) with graph paper and a pencil. Then you write up the data and submit it to a scientific journal as original research.
If you are a smart cookie the reviewers for the journal will have no way of determining if you really did the work or not. If you confirm an accepted theory you will not be subject to much in the way of skepticism and you can then get on with teaching your classes, pompously bloviating to your students, get promoted and be asked to give lectures at scientific meetings. NO ONE WILL KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
I once worked at an academic institution. While there I read an article by a professor there and since the professor's lab was next door to mine I wondered how he did the research he claimed to have done without my noticing much activity. I discretely went and looked at his records and lo and behold he never obtained the materials he would have needed to actually do the research he claimed. He invented the whole thing. It's a lot more common than you think. I would guess that 50% or more of academic research is just made up bull shit. (of course I will have to do a study to confirm that... I wonder if I can get a government grant??)
http://splice-bio.com/publish-or-perish-why-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research/
"Amgen set out to repeat 53 key discoveries in the field of cancer and succeeded in only 6"
Last edited: