This thread is for my exploration of the field of Economics.
My big mouth opened and here I will find out if my foot is in it again.
Hypothesis: Economics does not get to call itself a science because it does not reflect on the results of past predictions.
Null hypothesis: Shut up dumbass, it so does.
Meta-Analysis in Economics
An Introduction
(http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/academic/agec63300/ppts/012811_florax.pdf)
Not read completely yet.
Page 12 has a good graph that shows the number of meta-analyses is increasing. Since 2000 it has an Average of about 30 papers a year.
So if i want to be right about this I need to move fast, the fuckers are getting smarter.
More later.
what do you mean by does not reflect on past predictions?
Quote from: The Johnny on June 22, 2015, 10:55:07 AM
what do you mean by does not reflect on past predictions?
step 1: predict something.
step 2: wait until your prediction should have come true.
step 3: check if your prediction came true.
Go back to step 1 with new knowledge.
My claim is that economists skip step 3 making it impossible for them to improve their step 1.
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?
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
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.
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
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.
That's also true of ecology, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the field, it has to do with the fact that most people are exposed to science and the world around them only through a 42" 16:9 ratio.
Blaming YOU being a sheltered, uninquisitive dumbfuck on the information available through major media makes as much sense as declaring that the field of economics is represented by the GOP.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
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.
That's also true of ecology, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the field, it has to do with the fact that most people are exposed to science and the world around them only through a 42" 16:9 ratio.
Blaming YOU being a sheltered, uninquisitive dumbfuck on the information available through major media makes as much sense as declaring that the field of economics is represented by the GOP.
Considering that I don't rely on the media for my information on economics, I find your view on me and my stance to be as uninformed as you accuse me of being.
If economics does follow the full scientific method, why do we still have experts in the field advocating viewpoints that have been shown false according to the data provided by real world experimentation?
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
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.
That's also true of ecology, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the field, it has to do with the fact that most people are exposed to science and the world around them only through a 42" 16:9 ratio.
Blaming YOU being a sheltered, uninquisitive dumbfuck on the information available through major media makes as much sense as declaring that the field of economics is represented by the GOP.
Considering that I don't rely on the media for my information on economics, I find your view on me and my stance to be as uninformed as you accuse me of being.
If economics does follow the full scientific method, why do we still have experts in the field advocating viewpoints that have been shown false according to the data provided by real world experimentation?
For the same reason homeopaths and mediums advocate viewpoints that have been shown to be false according to the data provided by real world experimentation.
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 22, 2015, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
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.
That's also true of ecology, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the field, it has to do with the fact that most people are exposed to science and the world around them only through a 42" 16:9 ratio.
Blaming YOU being a sheltered, uninquisitive dumbfuck on the information available through major media makes as much sense as declaring that the field of economics is represented by the GOP.
Considering that I don't rely on the media for my information on economics, I find your view on me and my stance to be as uninformed as you accuse me of being.
If economics does follow the full scientific method, why do we still have experts in the field advocating viewpoints that have been shown false according to the data provided by real world experimentation?
For the same reason homeopaths and mediums advocate viewpoints that have been shown to be false according to the data provided by real world experimentation.
Exactly what I was thinking!
I'll get back to
researching I mean, insulting economic theory.
Dammit it is really hard to learn more about something and stay
biased. Focused.
I have this annoying tendency to like things more the more I learn about them.
Anyway, my reading materials for the foreseeable future are:
Meta-Analysis in Economics
An Introduction
(http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/academic/agec63300/ppts/012811_florax.pdf)
The inexact and seperate science of economics (https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=F7Vf3sb-ck4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=science+of+economics&ots=M4E3iru8ED&sig=r450FdXO9TfYPPqSDNkERH5HcMA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
both found through googling 'science of economics'.
Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen, A book by a winner of the Nobel prize in Economics that I recently bought for the sole purpose of exposing myself to something that makes me uncomfortable (i.e. economic theory). The blurb says "This is a paradigm-altering foundation for understanding the demands of economic development-for both rich and poor-in the twenty-first century." So that could be anything between hilarious and fascinating.
Pickety's 'Capital in the 21st Century' as mentioned by Demolition Squid. This one will have to wait until I am willing to spend money on it. It does sound interesting though.
Other than that I will skim The Black Swan by N.N. Taleb and 3 freakonomics books because I strongly suspect they may have fed my strong dislike of economists.
Thoughts will be posted, feel free to keep arguing in this thread though.
Read. Paul. Krugman's. Blog.
He takes on pundits disguised as economists like, every week. He has also correctly predicted, in advance, much of what has happened up to and during the Great Recession. With about an 83%-87% success rate. And he adjusts his models when they don't work. And he explains his math and models.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0
Quote from: Demolition Squid on June 22, 2015, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 03:43:40 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 22, 2015, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: Rev Thwack on June 22, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
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?
Are you positing that economists = GOP?
I am starting to wonder if you fuckers even know what economists are.
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.
That's also true of ecology, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the field, it has to do with the fact that most people are exposed to science and the world around them only through a 42" 16:9 ratio.
Blaming YOU being a sheltered, uninquisitive dumbfuck on the information available through major media makes as much sense as declaring that the field of economics is represented by the GOP.
Considering that I don't rely on the media for my information on economics, I find your view on me and my stance to be as uninformed as you accuse me of being.
If economics does follow the full scientific method, why do we still have experts in the field advocating viewpoints that have been shown false according to the data provided by real world experimentation?
For the same reason homeopaths and mediums advocate viewpoints that have been shown to be false according to the data provided by real world experimentation.
Bad economists = paid advertising by people in power
Homeopaths = naturalists hippies that dont trust the western Man
tm medicine
Mediums = special snowflakes that can talk to people we cant.
By comparing so liberally three different things you are cheapening analysis of the things themselves.
economists =/= bad economists =/= homeopaths =/= mediums
I think they are all conmen playing on people's ignorance to make a heap of cash, but okay.
You know who else had an economic theory?
Hitler, that's who.
QuoteOther than that I will skim The Black Swan by N.N. Taleb and 3 freakonomics books because I strongly suspect they may have fed my strong dislike of economists.
Quick note - freakonomics is a heap of shite. If you're looking to understand more I'd drop them now. I'm pretty sure I've gone on about this before but if anyone cares I'll probably spew it again.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 22, 2015, 09:51:40 PM
You know who else had an economic theory?
Hitler, that's who.
Gods, it's been a while since I've pulled the "Well, the Autobahns and volkswagen...." troll.