So you fucking think fry cooks don't deserve a higher minimum wage?

[Cain]

Many econonmists who have problems updating their priors also have significant financial interests in not doing so, including but not limited to easy access to publication in a conservative press sympathetic to their rubbish, book deals with associated publishing houses and jobs with think tanks or on academic chairs funded by the same people who back their prominence in the press.

Most scientists by contrast are not quite so richly rewarded for getting things wrong.

[LMNO]

Many econonmists who have problems updating their priors also have significant financial interests in not doing so, including but not limited to easy access to publication in a conservative press sympathetic to their rubbish, book deals with associated publishing houses and jobs with think tanks or on academic chairs funded by the same people who back their prominence in the press.

Most scientists by contrast are not quite so richly rewarded for getting things wrong.

Yes.  Absolutely agree.  See also: Scientists who write anti-global warming studies, or the studies that show smoking does not cause cancer.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, until people start making specific references, it's just another "All X are Y" argument.

I've already given one person who calls themselves an economist who updates their models based upon reality.

I can also name several who don't, and yes, they tend to get the most amount of press, but that doesn't make it the fault of economics.

It's discrediting physics because of the people who go around saying "the observer creates the universe".

Dingdingdingding

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics.

Yes, but we've already established that everything you know about the field, you have picked up through political coverage through the media, which means that you don't actually know what economics is and are not qualified to comment meaningfully on it.

You can bloviate, but until you know what it is, your opinions are meaningless. But look! You have this amazing tool, right under your very fingertips! What could it be? How could you use it to learn something, to inform your opinion before spouting it?

We just don't know. It's a mystery.

No, you've assumed that my knowledge of economics comes from mass media, but nothing of the sort has been established. Instead, you've demonstrated a willingness to draw conclusions without a solid basis and to act like you understand something you have no direct knowledge of.

Hasn't the GOP since the start of Reagan proven that there's no need to look at your predictions to see if they came true as long as you can pretend they did, or blame the other guy when you can't even pretend?

No, just saying that actually showing predictions to be true or false is something that is ignored in politics today, and most of what you hear regarding economist is political in nature unless you're in the financial industry yourself.

I'm sorry, did you mean something else when you said this?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You can find "experts in a field" saying all kinds of things that are incongruent with the science in that field. That's where we get "experts" like Dr. Oz and Dr. Mercola.

[Rev Thwack]

I've got a hard time calling economics a science. If we say something is a science, we're giving the impression that it follows the scientific method. Economics seems to miss out on the whole section of analyzing results to see if the hypothesis held up. I mean, you still hear economists arguing for trickle down economics.

Yes, but we've already established that everything you know about the field, you have picked up through political coverage through the media, which means that you don't actually know what economics is and are not qualified to comment meaningfully on it.

You can bloviate, but until you know what it is, your opinions are meaningless. But look! You have this amazing tool, right under your very fingertips! What could it be? How could you use it to learn something, to inform your opinion before spouting it?

We just don't know. It's a mystery.

No, you've assumed that my knowledge of economics comes from mass media, but nothing of the sort has been established. Instead, you've demonstrated a willingness to draw conclusions without a solid basis and to act like you understand something you have no direct knowledge of.

Hasn't the GOP since the start of Reagan proven that there's no need to look at your predictions to see if they came true as long as you can pretend they did, or blame the other guy when you can't even pretend?

No, just saying that actually showing predictions to be true or false is something that is ignored in politics today, and most of what you hear regarding economist is political in nature unless you're in the financial industry yourself.

I'm sorry, did you mean something else when you said this?

Well, what I didn't mean, and what I didn't say (because it's not true) is that my knowledge of economics comes from political reporting. What I was doing was drawing a connection between economics and politics, due to how deeply the two are merged here in the US.

[LMNO]

The connection is that politicians and pundits use poor economic models to justifiy their economic programs.

Again, the analogy is that of Dr Oz using bad science to justify his latest scheme fad diet.

[Rev Thwack]

The connection is that politicians and pundits use poor economic models to justifiy their economic programs.

Again, the analogy is that of Dr Oz using bad science to justify his latest scheme fad diet.

I've seen an equally large number of economists use their political beliefs as backing for their economic models which conflict with evidence, as well as using the same political ideology to financially profit off of these flawed models/theories.



When you've got economists like Block & Bourdeaux who use untested and unsupported theories to make political claims, when you have things like the Austrian school which works to avoid the scientific method and falsifiable claims, how can you view it as a science?

[LMNO]

If an "economist" starts with an ideological conclusion, they're not being economists, they're being pundits.

It's simply not science if you begin with a conclusion and backfill from there.  You know this.

I think you're mixing up economics with people who call themselves economists.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If an "economist" starts with an ideological conclusion, they're not being economists, they're being pundits.

It's simply not science if you begin with a conclusion and backfill from there.  You know this.

I think you're mixing up economics with people who call themselves economists.

But if they're publicly visible and politically affiliated, they must represent the academic field.

Logic!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The existence of bad economists means that it must follow that all economists are bad and the field of economics is invalid, because science and reasons.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Here is an interesting article that essentially discusses this very issue: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/robert-j--shilleron-whether-he-is-a-scientist

[Rev Thwack]

If an "economist" starts with an ideological conclusion, they're not being economists, they're being pundits.

It's simply not science if you begin with a conclusion and backfill from there.  You know this.

I think you're mixing up economics with people who call themselves economists.

But if they're publicly visible and politically affiliated, they must represent the academic field.

Logic!

Bourdeaux teaches at George Mason, was the chair there from '01-'09, and has also taught at Clemson.


Block is the chair at Loyola, and has taught at Central Arkansas, Holy Cross, Baruch, and Rutgers.



There are degrees in the Austrian school at  University of Missouri, George Mason, University of Chicago, North Central, and North Carolina, just to name a few places in the US.



How is it wrong to say this school isn't part of economics? What credentials does an individual need to count as an economists if these professors do not?

[The Johnny]

Dog is man's best friend.
A dog bit me.
That dog isnt really a dog cause it bit me and isnt my best friend.

:C

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If an "economist" starts with an ideological conclusion, they're not being economists, they're being pundits.

It's simply not science if you begin with a conclusion and backfill from there.  You know this.

I think you're mixing up economics with people who call themselves economists.

But if they're publicly visible and politically affiliated, they must represent the academic field.

Logic!

Bourdeaux teaches at George Mason, was the chair there from '01-'09, and has also taught at Clemson.


Block is the chair at Loyola, and has taught at Central Arkansas, Holy Cross, Baruch, and Rutgers.



There are degrees in the Austrian school at  University of Missouri, George Mason, University of Chicago, North Central, and North Carolina, just to name a few places in the US.



How is it wrong to say this school isn't part of economics? What credentials does an individual need to count as an economists if these professors do not?

The existence of bad economists means that it must follow that all economists are bad and the field of economics is invalid, because science and reasons.