Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

NYT Editorial.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The trouble with economics is that it lacks the most important of science’s characteristics — a record of improvement in predictive range and accuracy.

Making astrologers look smart.

War. Huh. Good God, y'all.......

Some of the most boring college instructors..............just can call them Econ Profs.

Gil Dobie wrote:Some of the most boring college instructors..............just can call them Econ Profs.

You must have gotten along famously with them.

Gil Dobie wrote:Some of the most boring college instructors..............just can call them Econ Profs.

True. Although my Macro Econ professor was one of my 3 favorite profs at UNI. Any guy that can intertwine the Gilligan's island theme song into a lecture on economics has got to be good!

Ibanez wrote:NYT Editorial.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The trouble with economics is that it lacks the most important of science’s characteristics — a record of improvement in predictive range and accuracy.

You could replace "economics" with "climate science" in this article and it would still be true.

Economics classes and general Studies related to global economies are good for primarily one thing:
Programming future generations into believing our global banking systems are not rigged


The end...

I read the whole thing. Written by a couple of humanities types who think the purpose of economics is to help us "tame the knave within us all." The predictive powers of economics are not perfect, because markets comprise groups of human beings whose collective behaviors are never 100% predictable. But there are enough basic principles that are true most of the time, like the law of supply and demand, that it's worth studying as a "social science."

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Written by a couple of humanities types who think the purpose of economics is to help us "tame the knave within us all." The predictive powers of economics are not perfect, because markets comprise groups of human beings whose collective behaviors are never 100% predictable. But there are enough basic principles that are true most of the time, like the law of supply and demand, that it's worth studying as a "social science."

Don't you get a BA in Economics?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Written by a couple of humanities types who think the purpose of economics is to help us "tame the knave within us all." The predictive powers of economics are not perfect, because markets comprise groups of human beings whose collective behaviors are never 100% predictable. But there are enough basic principles that are true most of the time, like the law of supply and demand, that it's worth studying as a "social science."

Don't you get a BA in Economics?

Not necessarily, my economics degree has BBA in front on it.

Baldy wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Don't you get a BA in Economics?

Not necessarily, my economics degree has BBA in front on it.

Interesting....

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Written by a couple of humanities types who think the purpose of economics is to help us "tame the knave within us all." The predictive powers of economics are not perfect, because markets comprise groups of human beings whose collective behaviors are never 100% predictable. But there are enough basic principles that are true most of the time, like the law of supply and demand, that it's worth studying as a "social science."

Don't you get a BA in Economics?

In some places you get a BS!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read the whole thing. Written by a couple of humanities types who think the purpose of economics is to help us "tame the knave within us all." The predictive powers of economics are not perfect, because markets comprise groups of human beings whose collective behaviors are never 100% predictable. But there are enough basic principles that are true most of the time, like the law of supply and demand, that it's worth studying as a "social science."

Don't you get a BA in Economics?

There are some schools that offer a BA in Econ, though it seems that the BS is more prevalent.

Ivytalk wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Don't you get a BA in Economics?

In some places you get a BS!

I have one of those.

HI54UNI wrote:

Ibanez wrote:NYT Editorial.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You could replace "economics" with "climate science" in this article and it would still be true.

See Ivy's post and the shit ton of variables that apply to both. They're still worthwhile.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
You could replace "economics" with "climate science" in this article and it would still be true.

See Ivy's post and the **** ton of variables that apply to both. They're still worthwhile.

I agree with Kalm and Ivy - it ain't perfect (true in both economics and climate science) but let's not throw away all the learning just because it's not perfect. There are very few sciences that are unchanged from what they looked like 100 years ago - we're always learning and the new stuff in some cases proves what we thought we knew before was wrong, and in many cases proves what we knew before was right. There's not a finish line in stuff like this, just an ever continuing journey of discovery.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
See Ivy's post and the **** ton of variables that apply to both. They're still worthwhile.

I agree with Kalm and Ivy - it ain't perfect (true in both economics and climate science) but let's not throw away all the learning just because it's not perfect. There are very few sciences that are unchanged from what they looked like 100 years ago - we're always learning and the new stuff in some cases proves what we thought we knew before was wrong, and in many cases proves what we knew before was right. There's not a finish line in stuff like this, just an ever continuing journey of discovery.

Just look at medicine.

Very well put, Ganny

AZGrizFan wrote:

Baldy wrote: Not necessarily, my economics degree has BBA in front on it.

Interesting....

Be careful when Mercury is in retrograde.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
See Ivy's post and the **** ton of variables that apply to both. They're still worthwhile.

I agree with Kalm and Ivy - it ain't perfect (true in both economics and climate science) but let's not throw away all the learning just because it's not perfect. There are very few sciences that are unchanged from what they looked like 100 years ago - we're always learning and the new stuff in some cases proves what we thought we knew before was wrong, and in many cases proves what we knew before was right. There's not a finish line in stuff like this, just an ever continuing journey of discovery.

But Algore and Barry say that climate science is decided.

Ibanez wrote:NYT Editorial.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The trouble with economics is that it lacks the most important of science’s characteristics — a record of improvement in predictive range and accuracy.

The link won't work for me but I'm inclined to agree. Frankly I don't get the impression that predictions made by economists are any better than random chance. I've wondered what would happen if someone were to quantitatively track their predictions, compare them to what actually happens, and see if what they do actually has any predictive value at all. I'd be interested in seeing if macro economics has any predictive capability at ALL; much less worrying about whether or not the predictive accuracy has a record of improvement.

ust look at medicine.

In medicine they do controlled experiments to demonstrate that something works and that what is predicted is likely to happen. It's a much, much "harder" science than economics. I don't even think economics should be called a science because there is no real possibility of conducting controlled experiments.

OK. I was able to get to the editorial by Googling and ending up at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-ber ... 16471.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The guy pretty much concedes that economics can't predict anything; and that's the impression I've always had.

And that's one of the reasons I've always thought it's a shame that economics has such an impact on how people vote. To me you should vote on principles deeper than economics. To me if you're one of those people that judges the incumbent by how well the economy is doing you're using the wrong criterion.

HI54UNI wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I agree with Kalm and Ivy - it ain't perfect (true in both economics and climate science) but let's not throw away all the learning just because it's not perfect. There are very few sciences that are unchanged from what they looked like 100 years ago - we're always learning and the new stuff in some cases proves what we thought we knew before was wrong, and in many cases proves what we knew before was right. There's not a finish line in stuff like this, just an ever continuing journey of discovery.

But Algore and Barry say that climate science is decided.

Neither of those two are scientists nor really qualified to make those determinations.

GannonFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
But Algore and Barry say that climate science is decided.

Neither of those two are scientists nor really qualified to make those determinations.

That may be true, but why the fuck have you not posted in my birthday thread?