EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Power of Fighting Back: Student Protests in London
The occupation of Conservative party HQ is about so much more than fees. At last the country is beginning to fight back
Wednesday's protest against the education cuts was uplifting: students, staff and others from all over the country gathered in their thousands to walk the route between Embankment and Tate Britain, pausing to boo at Downing Street. The weather was bright and clear, and the mood decidedly upbeat. Staff, students and others marched together under banners from colleges all over the country, while drums and chants protesting at the fees rang out for miles. There were a sizable number of Lib Dems protesting against their own party's U-turn on fees, and a sit-in outside parliament - the peace protesters who reside there were happy to give the students a quick lesson in the true meaning of anarchy.
Numbers were massive too, with around 52,000 turning out - more than double the NUS's original estimate. Police helicopters circled above the crowds, as protesters carried giant vultures, carrots, coffins and effigies of Tory politicians. But media reports will inevitably focus on one thing, namely the spontaneous occupation of and protest in Tory HQ at 30 Millbank Tower. Aaron Porter, the NUS president, was quick to condemn the breakaway protesters, describing their actions as "despicable".
As I write, about 200 people have occupied the building, and bonfires burn outside. Some arrests have been made and eight people - protesters and police officers - have been injured. Protesters have broken windows and made their way on to the roof. Twitter reports indicate that some have taken a sofa from inside Millbank and put it outside, with the quite reasonable argument that "if we're going to be kettled we may as well be comfy".
Direct action this most certainly was, the kind writers such as John Pilger have recently been calling for. It is hard to see the violence as simply the wilfulness of a small minority - it is a genuine expression of frustration against the few who seem determined to make the future a miserable, small-minded and debt-filled place for the many.
The protest as a whole was extremely important, not just because of the large numbers it attracted, and shouldn't be understood simply in economic terms as a complaint against fees. It also represented the serious anger many feel about cuts to universities as they currently stand, and the ideological devastation of the education system if the coalition gets its way. It was a protest against the narrowing of horizons; a protest against Lib Dem hypocrisy; a protest against the increasingly utilitarian approach to human life that sees degrees as nothing but "investments" by individuals, and denies any link between education and the broader social good.
The protesters - students and others - who occupied Tory HQ will no doubt continue to be condemned in the days to come. But their anger is justified: the coalition government is ruining Britain for reasons of ideological perversity. The protests in France and Greece and the student occupations here, such as the recent takeover of Deptford Town Hall by Goldsmiths students on the day cuts were announced, are indicators of a new militancy. At this point, what have we got to lose?
The best moments on any protests are when there is a real feeling of common purpose and a recognition that we are all on the same side. This is the true meaning of "big society" - the very thing that the coalition seems set on destroying, despite its rhetoric. This protest - in both its peaceful and more violent dimensions - is a sign of a country unafraid to fight back, for the first time in a long time.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
113 Comments so far
Show AllAnd it will have the same success as the French "protests" had. Europe is meeting reality for the first time in decades and doesn't like it.
Democrats met reality 9 days ago and still refuse to accept it.
These types of actions repel reasonable people when they turn violent, they do not convince or remove the economic facts.
The economic fact is that a great deal of money has been transferred from the public purse to pay bankers, now what resonable person would not be outraged at being robbed in such a manner.
I completely agree with your post! Who would NOT be outraged?
The choice is freedom or slavery. It's time to fight.
"These types of actions ... do not convince or remove the economic facts."
"Economic facts"?! That's an oxymoron if ever there was one! Economics does not produce facts; it produces justifications for the policies of the ruling class (whatever the ruling class happens to be at the time).
You can see how far "economics" has fallen from the fact that the Greek root word meant "the governance of the household".
The study and practice of economics should be abolished, and the management of the human household should be treated as a hybrid of ecology and moral philosophy.
"The study and practice of economics should be abolished,"
That's a pretty extreme view, how do you justify it?
Economics is a well established Social Science just like Psychology or Anthropology None of these are hard sciences, and this is well known.
"moral philosophy"
Does not "produce facts" any better than Economics.
Facts are very helpful but even facts only go so far. Sometimes, you have to analyze beyond the obvious to pull out the hidden culprit(s) and hold them accountable. Did you know that philosophy has had a positive significant impact on the development of science until the last few decades when corporations and the Religious Right got in on it and messed it all up? I think those young European protesters have better brains and know a whole lot more than what the Tea Party drunkards would in a million years.
"Facts are very helpful but even facts only go so far."
Agreed.
" Did you know that philosophy has had a positive significant impact on the development of science "
Yes, to a certain extent. Are you of the opinion that the impact was exclusively positive? I would wonder about that.
"Are you of the opinion that the impact was exclusively positive? I would wonder about that."
I have limited knowledge of all science but after the 1960s, I have seen nothing bright or innovative come from science in this country. Other countries have beaten the crap out of us since. They must be having better philosophies than this nation at this rate. I am not sure it is exclusive but history shows that it was significantly positive.
" I have seen nothing bright or innovative come from science in this country. Other countries have beaten the crap out of us since"
I was involved in science (learning, teaching and doing) from 1960 to 2002. I have no idea what you are talking about.
In fact, Most of the really good science students from other countries come here to do graduate work. There is no better place to do it.
As an example of the kind of work that is done here, sometime in the 1970s a guy at Cornell (whose degree was from Cal Tech) solved the three-dimensional Ising problem (which deals with, among other things, the onset of Ferromagnetism), something that eluded Lev Landau for decades.
"Most of the really good science students from other countries come here to do graduate work. There is no better place to do it."
The only reason they come here is because the elites in both America and their countries are pushing them into it.
"I was involved in science (learning, teaching and doing) from 1960 to 2002. I have no idea what you are talking about. "
I don't think he's referring to those teaching science. Anyone can do that. I think he's talking about people who have made a difference in science for the better. Any great ideas or inventions in this country in the last 3 decades? I don't think so unless I missed something.
Yes, Lasers, MRI, Quantum Tunneling, Solar Power, Hydrogen Air/Fuel Engines, Genetic Medicines, Sperm Cell cures, M-Theory from string theory (see Hawking's new book the Grand Design), Fiber optics, GPS using Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity, nano machines,fuel producing algae, Prime Number cryptography etc. etc.
Did you know that in the 1980's, Japan was beating the crap out of America and Europe in electronics, autos and you name it? I used to teach Business at leading Business Schools. The business class's mantra was Japanese Style Management called KAIZEN - - continuous improvement. All the know-nothing talking heads on MSM who are scientifically illiterate, socio-economic blowhard "pundits" were projecting Japan's world dominance for the next 100 years. I must have been the only economics/finance/accounting professor with substantial training in mathematics and physics, and an enduring love for Quantum Physics to be quibling with people like that, whom Stanley seems to remind me of, who had given up on American science. Most of it was the result of the general the fact of Buiness Profs and businesspersons pathetic science and math education, training and understanding rather than any deep knowledge of the issues. Combine that with the American mind's almost biological habit to make the most outrageously uninformed oneliner comments and be dismissive on the most profound issues of the day (which is considered in the Gringo culture to show "smarts" and sharp minds) with the most miminmal knowledge. It still exists in abundance. Hence the agonizing inability of Americans to think coherently, even on CD, for more than few seconds and the deepening mess in the country.
Well, I told my colleagues that they were writing off American science without an iota of knowledge about it and that Japan had invested only in UTILITARIAN TECHNOLOGY stemming from American science and inventions in microelectronics and internal combustion engines. Not in FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE. But the Japanaese like the Koreans have a robotic culture of blind obedience to authority. They are great at at tweaking dials like worker bees here and there with an existing science and technology, but that they don't invest in FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE and MATHEMATICS at their universities such as researching the deep mysteries of quantum and other physics, mathematics, biology, molecular chemistry, advanced quantum electronics etc. The American business types in and out of academia used to argue then to say: "Nah. this is all ivory tower pointy head mumbo-jumbo research with no untilitarian value in my lifetime blah, blah, blah..." Just as Stanley and maxpayne are doing here.
Well, lo and behold! The Japanese juggernaut came to a screeching halt in the early 1990's because companies like Sony had squeezed the last drop of tweaking from the 1970's science and their own universities and research labs had produced nothing new. Boom! The Japanese economy collapsed. I read their desperate 5-year plans to revive the economy with new science by loosening credit like the Fed is doing now AND gobs of but belated investments of $50-$100 billion in advanced theoretical sciences at top Japanese universities to produce 10,000 newly minted Ph.D.s by 1995 and in the second 5-year plan from 1995-2000, another 10,000. Also huge investments in the FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE laboratory and other infrastructure at their universities. In the meanwhile, America came roaring back with the INTERNET, FIBRE OPTICS, LASERS, QUANTUM TUNNELING,graphics and other useful software, prime number cryptography, network electronic trafiic control large web networks, you name it. That is why Bill Clinton ended up in a surplus serendipitously. Japan is still (as of 2010) in the tank as one cannot produce a free-wheeling science culture in regimented societies such as Japan and Korea overnight.
Sheep Herder I am with you.
"The American business types in and out of academia used to argue then to say: "Nah. this is all ivory tower pointy head mumbo-jumbo research with no untilitarian value in my lifetime blah, blah, blah..." Just as Stanley and maxpayne are doing here."
Neither I nor Stanley did any such thing. You already know that Japan's beaten the crap out of America. See for yourself. Nothing's coming from America anymore other than GMO bs.
Your example proves that nothing ever shined from it even in the 70s whereas before it would have made a societal difference. How come we end up finding every college genius in science from another nation? Education is already falling apart and our public schools closing at a faster rate will only hasten the demise of education in the states. I don't have a happy feeling about this.
How do I justify abolishing the study and practice of economics?
It was said of the great English architect Christopher Wren, "If you wish to see his monument, look around you." The same can be said of economics.
Moral philosophy does not produce facts, but ecology -- which I also mentioned -- does. That's why you need both: one to produce facts, the other to make sense of them.
Please explain *exactly* what the "monument" is you blame on "economics", a psuedo-science in your view, and explain why the same thing couldn't be blamed on other things, like politics, say. Thanks in advance.
I'm supposed to explain *exactly* in 1,000 words or less the subject of too many articles posted here to count? I say again: Look around you.
"explain why the same thing couldn't be blamed on other things, like politics, say"
Actually, when economics isn't engaged in constructing highly elaborate mathematical fantasy worlds (such as the one developed in the University of Chicago), it operates as an instrument of politics -- as I said in my first post. It can do so because too many people actually believe that economics has more intellectual validity than astrology.
"I'm supposed to explain *exactly* in 1,000 words or less "
No. Don't lose focus. Your original claim was "The study and practice of economics should be abolished". I am asking you to justify that statement and you are dodging the question again.
Maybe you can use some help. Cany anyone here help Angry Kraut explain in a straight forward way why "The study and practice of economics should be abolished"?
"highly elaborate mathematical fantasy worlds "
Pay attention, we covered this already: Those are called "models". Many other sciences construct models, but have the advantage over economics of labs and various field methods to verify the models. The economists only have the actual Economy itself.
Hopefully "jakenwton" is not an economist, because it would double the ironies of this post. First we have, "Economics is a well established Social Science," followed by "'moral philosophy' [sic] Does not 'produce facts' any better than Economics" (reading the words "any better" with italics). Now, insofar as "well established Social Science just like Psychology [which is "social" only insofar as one has multiple personality disorder] or Anthropology [sic] None of these are hard sciences, and this is well known," then the implication is the product of economics is not to be taken too seriously, just like for "Psychology or Anthropology." Implicitly, only the product of the "hard sciences" should be taken seriously, although what constitutes the "hard sciences" is unstated by the thoughtful poster. Perhaps designating economics as not among the "hard sciences" does not justify recommending that "The study and practice of economics should be abolished," but it does justify the claims of economics should not be taken too seriously. Certainly no more seriously than the claims of "'moral philosophy.'" Thus it is, the poster, if an economist, designates the poster's self as not to be taken too seriously. Being so, then presumably this warning should apply to the poster's post itself.
[sic] [sic] [sic]
Gesundheit.
"then the implication is the product of economics is not to be taken too seriously, just like for "Psychology or Anthropology.""
No, the implication is that they are merely soft sciences, they are not hard like physics or math. This doesn't mean that the soft sciences are unserious.
" although what constitutes the "hard sciences" is unstated "
Are you really so unfamiliar with this idea, that there are hard sciences and soft sciences? I'm very sorry. I would start with Wikipedia in order to get up to speed.
I won't get involved in the soft versus hard labels, but if you ever open an economics journal, you will find that modern economics is basically mathematics, not anything close to Psychology and Anthropology. And very advanced mathematics at that. That is why so many Physics Phds ended up on Wall street developing models for investment banks. No jobs in Physics and high-paying jobs involving economics, so what were they to do?
"you will find that modern economics is basically mathematics, "
Yes, economic *models* can involve very complex math, but that isn't what makes the science soft on the whole. It's soft because it involves trying to predict human behaviour, and the fact that there is no lab to study things, there is only the Economy itself. Think of the one handed Economist that Truman wanted, so he wouldn't have to keep hearing "On the other hand...". Or more recently in a discussion on NPR in gauging the success of the Cash for Clunkers program, the commentator pointed out that there is no "Paralell Universe" where we could have set everything up except not having the C for C program to make a good comparison to determine the success. of that program.
Good point. Isaiah Berlin once wrote that the 18th century philosophers made the mistake of thinking that human activities could be modeled with equations as the motions of the planets were modeled by Newton.
They confused the difference between models and the real world of human behavior, which is too complex to represent adequately.
But my point was that within the closed world of axioms and theorems, the conclusions of economic mathematics are as valid as those in non-applied mathematics, and just as mystifying.
"But my point was that within the closed world of axioms and theorems, the conclusions of economic mathematics are as valid as those in non-applied mathematics, and just as mystifying."
I know, I work in insurance just now (IT). The Risk Modeling department is a few paces down the hall.
Jake, just out of curiosity, which "insurance" that you say you work in are you talking about, health or auto? And I promise not to bite or scream. Well, at least I'll try not to. :)
(applies armour and earplugs)
Mortgage insurance. I work in an office heavily weighted with VP and director level people, as well as the math guys. There are some very smart people here by any fair accounting.
Well, there's no point in screaming or scratching at you either. When I look back at the archives and recall maxpayne mentioning his working with companies related to DoD in the past, I would have also raised a hell with him had I been around and not sick at that time. However, after he eventually explained what he has been through and proved his class conscious thinking despite working in a company related to repugnant industries, it became clear to some of us that we have to tackle this system deep down. Having said all that, I can see where you too are coming from and while I would not have gone that route, I can see why you are in where you are at. It stinks and it breaks my heart that smart people find themselves with fewer opportunities outside the realm of controversial industries. Paying off college debts isn't easy even with doing online education but I managed to pinch myself and save well in all of my years. I started work 9 months after finishing grad school and never worked for a big corporation.
You should consider standing up to bad business practices as much as your heart will let you regardless of what the top people try to hurt you with for being a whistle blower. By what you are saying, I feel like giving you the same sympathies I gave to maxpayne and his wife although he mentioned that he and his wife are out of that loop and onto starting their own local business. Good luck and take care.
"controversial industries."
I don't see insurance as all that controversial. If you had certain examples we might agree, but I think it's a legitimate need overall. And the market says so. :-)
"You should consider standing up to bad business practices "
I once quit a job that made me feel dirty. I did telecom and computer work for a company that provided "900" telephone services. It was all sex talk, credit repair, sports betting, and lots of bad business practices. The economy sucked, but when I started seeing jobs I looked in earnest and quit as soon as I got one with minimum notice. ANd I told them why on the minimum notice.
"Good luck and take care."
Thanks, same to you.
JB, thanks and I won't let the MIC tempt me again this time !
Sheep: And in both cases we end up with a bomb; one literal, and the other, assuming the form of weapons of mass financial destruction.
PHILAN: Love your parody on logic taken to the Nth power.
Sheepherder says
" You ever open an economics journal, you will find that modern economics is basically mathematics, not anything close to Psychology and Anthropology. And very advanced mathematics at that."
Quite right. I am a mathematician, physicist turned into, can you believe it, an accounting prof, but with lots of training and knowledge over 3 decades in mathematical economics and finance.
This is not to say I haven't ready the old "moral philosophy" TURGID PROSE book of Adam Smith and a lot of the so-called "political economy types" from the London School of Economics (LSE) (eg Dobb). I read quite carefully the book by Keyenes called "The General Theory". Whatever one paragraph "spiritual" summaries and slogans I have read about what Keynes said and didn't say are all crap. It was the most horribly written book I had read, even worse than Smith. I figured out by the late 1970's and my own experience with British Style Education, that Economics was considered a social science in Britian by the old farts at LSE and Oxford who frowned heavily on anyone using any math or numbers, except in the most boring accounting examples, when writing treatises and papers on aconomics, unlike the case in America under the influence of Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow and others. So the British dons, who were considered part of the aristocary and regularly invited to the latter's mansions and parties, could not appear as "uncouth" as the Americans and the new post- war French School under Allais that also was using math models. Hence Keynes' tortuous explanations and verbal convolutions for 2-3 pages of ideas that could be stated in one simple equation and an ilustrative example and a diagram.
Many of the old school Marxists are still stuck in this British Marxism of LSE. Even though Marx had invented the Input/Output model, which only needed some linear algebra to make it powerful. Many CD writers are probably old codgers who still think of economics as a sort of prose writing contest in obfuscation and wild generalizations without parameter constraints and model boundaries. Plus they dread the simplest math because of grade or high school traumas learning math from lousy teachers and rote learning parents.
Progresives can't make any headway against the technocrats of Wall Street unless they learn their mathematical methods and how they translate into policy, especially monetary and fiscal. That is the reality. Otherwise these bastards run circles round old codger leftists, make them look old and out of touch with modern economic structures, and then sell their souls to the oligarchs to hype up "capitalism" even if the mathemtics clearly reveals that capitalism is always a disaster when the market participants are NOT SYMETRICALLY INFORMED. In that case, which is the norm in the real world, INFO. ASYMMETRY leads to insider trading, corruption and what have you. This is now ESTABLISHED SCIENCE - - there are no smoothly running capital markets without heavy regulation (vigorous SEC) and enforcment against insider trading, corruption, bogus securities, Public Insurance such as FDIC, and so forth. All IN MATHEMATICAL MODELS that capitailist stool pigeons cannot argue with.
But who have progresives got as their economic spokes-people? Good hearted liberals but without heavy duty math abilities such as Dean Baker, Michael Hudson, Robert Reich and such. Stiglitz and Krugman are the only heavies batting for the progs who have the necessary background and credentials. But these are considered personnae nongrta at the OB WH.
Do you think Economics is a Social Science? How "hard" is it in your view? Thank you.
Fascinating jakenewton, especially when considering,
"at the quantum level of accuracy the entire universe (including, of course, all observers of it), must be regarded as forming a single indivisible unit with every object linked to its surroundings by indivisible and incompletely controllable quanta. If it were necessary to give all parts of the world a completely quantum-mechanical description, a person trying to apply quantum theory to the process of observation would be faced with an insoluble paradox. This would be so because he would then have to regard himself as something connected inseparably with the rest of the world. On the other hand, the very idea of making an observation implies that what is observed is totally distinct from the person observing it." [David Bohm, Quantum Theory (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1989), 584.]
Even more fascinating when considering Werner Heisenberg concludes concerning,
"the difficulty of separating the subject and objective aspects of the world. Many of the abstractions that are characteristic of modern theoretical physics are to be found discussed in the philosophy of past centuries. At that time these abstractions could be disregarded as mere mental exercises by those scientists whose only concern was with reality, but today we are compelled by the refinements of experimental art to consider them seriously." [Werner Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, trans. Carl Eckart and F. C. Hoyt (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1949) 65.]
Gosh jakenewton, are you so unfamiliar with quantum theory to not know there is no clear distinction between hard sciences and soft sciences? Oh, by the way, the two quotations provided are just a small sample of similar quotations.
"the two quotations provided are just a small sample of similar quotations."
If you think those quotes indicate that quantum mechanics is a "soft" science then I think you grossly misinterpreted their meaning.
jakenewton, "those quotes indicate" realization by quantum theorists that the division between "hard" and "soft" science is false. Your adherence to Newtonian mechanics is what leads you to your commitment to the distinction. First, you will find few if any mathematicians who consider mathematics a "science," unless "science" is meant in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century sense of any close study of a subject. Doing this, then indeed all the social sciences, as well as literary theory, history, philosophy, etc., are sciences. Your vision of science is derived from post WWI Logical Positivism, which had a normative and even theological agenda.
Second, if you consider Bohm's observation,
"at the quantum level of accuracy the entire universe (including, of course, all observers of it), must be regarded as forming a single indivisible unit with every object linked to its surroundings by indivisible and incompletely controllable quanta,"
then variables effecting natural objects are as numerous as variables effecting human subjects. Additionally, quantum theory presumes the object is defined by the observer, introducing the human into the foundation of "hard science." If this human is as variable as you appear to think, then the observed natural object of the "hard" scientist implicitly incorporates this variability. Being so, on your assumptions, the object of the "hard" scientist is as variable as the subject of the social scientist.
Put simply, Wikipedia is a lousy source for information on a complex subject. You need to expand your reading.
"those quotes indicate" realization by quantum theorists that the division between "hard" and "soft" science is false. "
Please explain why.
" Your adherence to Newtonian mechanics is what leads you to your commitment to the distinction. "
No it is not. It's the inability for Economists to conduct meaningful experiments such as those that can be done in a lab by other kinds of scientists that lead me to the distinction.
Are you trying to say that that the terms hard and soft have no practical use, and in so doing say that Economics is pretty much the same as Physics? Or do you agree with Angry Kraut that Economics is a psuedo science and it's study should be banned?
It's not a matter of "hard" and "soft" science. Economics is as "soft" as physics explaining the "mechanics" of fetal development. What determines the extent of explanation a discipline can provide is its assumptions. Thus physics cannot explain biology and biology cannot explain sociology. Variables are infinite in all disciplines, as Bohm observes. Resolution is to make variables finite by axiomatic definition. This limits explanatory extent of the discipline. Keenly aware of this are advocates of the Copenhagen variation of quantum theory. Limiting economics is,
“Different sciences have various explanations for why people do what they do. . . . Economists . . . argue that if we want an analysis that’s simple enough to apply to policy problems, . . . heavy psychological explanations are likely to get us mixed up. At least to start with, we need an easier underlying psychological foundation. And economists have one—self-interest. People do what they do because it’s in their self-interest.” [David Colander, Microeconomics, 6th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2006), 188.]
Conceding "heavy psychological explanations are likely to get us mixed up," economics admits to an incomplete framework, leading it to error because of failure to consider "heavy psychological explanations."
OK, you have made many very interesting points. My question is if you agree that economics is a psuedo science that should be banned from study, as was asserted earlier, or if there are any prominent economists who don'y understand it's incompleteness in predicting or explaning economic things.
Okey-dokey. Asserting, “Malthus failed to realize how technical innovation could intervene—not to repeal the law of diminishing returns, but to more than offset it,” Paul Samuelson effectively denies entropy. [Paul A. Samuelson, Economics, ninth edition (New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), 737.] Denying entropy is necessary to provide for economic growth. Entropy being the product of an equation, Samuelson is effectively denying economic calculations have a finite product. To provide for economic growth, the product of an economic calculation must be infinite. Economic equations having no finite product, the product of all economic calculations must be the same: infinity. Being so, there is no reason for economics.
To be remembered is Samuelson's text book was the largest selling text book in American academic history, shaping generations of economists, most of whom are still screwing up economic policy to this very day because they can't calculate a damn thing. However, if they have to accept entropy, then all those environmental economists who assume finite resources have to be taken seriously. That occurring, then economists can no longer promise pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by. Oh by the way, for those unfamiliar with technical terms in economics, "by-and-by" means "in the long run."
" Samuelson is effectively denying economic calculations have a finite product"
i.e. Economics is "squishy", assuming he is correct. I know that, I think all economists know that, but my question was if there were any prominent ones that talk like they don't, as was asserted bu some earlier. The other question was if you thought that it was a psuedo science, to be distinguished of course from social science.
Yikes, these columns are getting narrow! Is economics a "pseudo science," that's a tough one because of indeterminacy of the expression "pseudo science." Certainly the neo-classicism in vogue over the last thirty or more years smacks of ideology more than "science." What might be thought a watershed in modern economic thought is the Cambridge capital controversy of the late 1960s-early 1970s, which involved American neo-classicists at Harvard and MIT and British Keynesians at Cambridge. Although usually avoiding Wikipedia, it's useful in summarizing this controversy thus:
"However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, ‘declared victory’: Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss ‘capital’ as if it were a well-defined concept - which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the ‘rational expectations revolution’ and in virtually all econometric work.” (Burmeister 2000) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_controversy.
Despite defeat, as Wikipedia indicates, “In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred.” It is this which smacks of ideology more than "science." Thus it is environmental economists yet are assigned basement venues for their panels at the American Economic Association conferences. Certainly the environmental economists defy the neo-classical model, as well as do economic institutionalists, if there be any remaining. Keynsians sorta' don't go along. Historians of economic thought are often rebels as well, but not taken seriously by the "scientists." Still, neo-classicism dominates the "discipline," so much so, The University of Chicago is converting the building formerly housing the School of Theology into an economic center dedicated to Milton Friedman. This drips with too much irony to believe the administrator's engineering it realized the irony.
"Yikes, these columns are getting narrow!"
Yup. Some times I say "see new post" and in the new post you get the width back.
"Is economics a "pseudo science," that's a tough one"
Yup. The contest though is from the assertion of another poster that it should not be studied or practiced.
"Wikipedia, it's useful"
Why yes it is! :-) You should not have to avoid it.
"It is this which smacks of ideology more than "science." "
It sure does, I am pretty sure I said something alluding to this earlier. It has a large dollop of Philosophy, it seems.
"environmental economists"
Are these the guys studying the economics of ant colonies?
So, is it OK to study or practice economics?
Before you get uppity about philosophy, we have Werner Heisenberg concluding the following in respect to,
"the difficulty of separating the subject and objective aspects of the world. Many of the abstractions that are characteristic of modern theoretical physics are to be found discussed in the philosophy of past centuries. At that time these abstractions could be disregarded as mere mental exercises by those scientists whose only concern was with reality, but today we are compelled by the refinements of experimental art to consider them seriously." [Werner Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, trans. Carl Eckart and F. C. Hoyt (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1949), 65.]
Continuing on from Heisenberg,
". . . [George] Berkeley criticizes Newton’s fundamental concepts in a way that sounds most modern. . . . The only objective of physical science, according to Berkeley, is to find out the regularities and uniformities of natural phenomena and to account for the particular appearances ‘by reducing them under, and shewing their conformity to, such general rules.’" [Max Jammer, Concepts of Force (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1999), 203.]"
Finally, from Richard Feynman, “There may be, and likely is, an irreducible metaphysical element to all physical concepts.” [John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin, Richard Feynman, A Life in Science (Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997), http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm.]
Economics is a long way from the sophistication of philosophy, effectively unaware of it. As a result, unlike Feynman, they pay no attention to the metaphysical foundation of their presuppositions.
"Economics is a long way from the sophistication of philosophy"
So do we "ban" it?
No, we need not "'ban' it," just take it with a block of salt, something to which the business wedded current Western political policy makers seem oblivious. How these policy makers could have allowed current economic policy to lead to a slower version of the Great Depression, and still continue on imposing the same economic policy, I do not understand. Effectively, they assume the policy which led us off the cliff will lead us back up the cliff. Irrational on its face, no rational response can be made to it. Thus, we only can scream, "What are you stupid m....er f...ers doing?!"
"No, we need not "'ban' it," just take it with a block of salt,"
Agreed.
Based on the results, I'd put it up there with metorology, or tea leaves. Somehow they con their masters into paying them tons of money. But to date they have never accuratly predicted any major economic event. To date I think we do a better job predicting earthquakes.
Of course this could well be because of the bilderburger conspiracy, the fact that the economy has never run freely and is in a state of constant of manipulation to steal moneys not earned by groups planting stories in papers and rumors on the floor to cause the stock exchange sheeple to run blindly off cliffs without the slightest idea why! except they are following other sheeple!
Both of these would explain why the economy can not and will not ever be predicted mathemacticly.
Unless you have good insider information your as well off betting on the slots in Vegas.
>^^<
"But to date they have never accuratly predicted any major economic event. "
Nonsense! Why, there was a Famous Economist who was famous for correctly predicting seven out of the last four recessions!
I have lot's of other economist jokes, want to hear them?
LOL. No one let the economists in on this little bit of wisdom yet. They are still reading tea leaves.
Spare me. Economics repeatedly tries to portray itself as a "hard" science, using lots of calculus to give the false impression of rigour, and not as a social science at all.