economics and freedom
I hope we all agree that banning religion as the Soviets did is just as evil as a state religion. Truth can stand on its own and only error needs government to prop it up.
Economics is a science just like evolutionary biology, yet many atheists, agnostics, and Deists display the same sort of willful ignorance of economics that we accuse our Theist brothers of posessing with respect to darwinism.
From Adam Smith to Milton Freidman, economics has shown that government interferance in the economy beyond preventing fraud, enforcing contracts, and protecting private property has led to wealth destruction and human misery.
What finally cured me of my protestantism was thoughts of the Mormons. I marveled that otherwise good, honest people could believe something so obviosly fabricated. It wasn't logical to assume that somehow I was immune to the same sort of forces that shaped their belief system, so I took a more critical look at my own faith and was forced to conclude that Christianity was simply older, not more logical than Mormonism.
The scientific method has improved the condition of humanity more than any other single idea, yet economics as a branch of science has not lived up to its full potential because it is the area where objectivity is most difficult to achieve. I would welcome feedback from other freethinkers concerning economics, especially anyone with an opposing view.
Objectivity in economics is hard to achieve for a good reason. Economics is the study of something so dynamic it's hard to pinpoint what's a cause and what's an effect. There are a lot of abstract models but it's hard to say who's is right, if anyone's.
A scientific approach to understanding a problem is isolating as many variables as possible in a test. How can we do that with economics?
You start with a hypothesis, and then make predictions based on it. If the predictions are accurate, then your hypothesis eventually becomes a theory. Macroeconomic studies can be based on the same population at two different periods of time or on two similar populations.
Theories generally accepted by all modern economists, but not understood by the general public include:
Supply and demand (Adam Smith)
Comparative advantage (David Ricardo)
Marginal Utility (Alfred Marshal)
Anyone not well grounded in these basic concepts, become vulnerable to flim-flam artists the same way people fall prey to psychics, faith healers and creationists.
http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~aroth/econsci.html
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zJwwAVM1Auc
economics is simply not a science, and any of my economics teachers agree. They call it an art or doctrine because quite simply you can use the same figures to promote two completely contradictory theories.
Anyone claiming to have some golden final solution based on some abstract concept based on "freedom" or "objectivity" are usually flim-flam artists the same as psychics, faith healers and creationists.
Thomas Carlyle coined the term "dismal science" in the 19th century in reference to economics or what was the called "political economy." Obviously a field of knowldege has to first be a science befor it can be a science with an adjective.
from wikipedia:
Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The term economics comes from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."[1]
Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The term economics comes from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."[1]
people who want to discount economics are often frauds just like the scientologists who discount the field of psychology because psychologists expose them as a cult.
I wouldn't call psychology much of a science either, though saying something is too subjective to be considered a science in the truest sense is not the same as discrediting it. If economic theories were held up to the same level of scrutiny as the hard sciences, I doubt any economic theory would be left standing.
And you're vague rants don't really add much to your own credibility.
Why all the hostility? If you think economics is not a valid field of study, then make your case. The burden of proof is on you. I have as much suspicion of anyone who denies economics as someone who denies evolutionary biology.
As for my own personal credibilty, I make no claims. Ignore my posts if you find no value in them.
I never said it wasn't a valid field of study, it's just not a science. And I think all your previous posts are a testament to that. You say that total government non-interventionism is the only path, you gotta back up that claim, and not just use argument from authority. It is also pretty arrogant and absurd to assume that one system is always right and a be-all-end-all solution. I can't really disprove such a claim, but that is why economics is not a hard science.
In my economics class, they taught us to be skeptical of all such claims, the way data is recorded has a big effect. For example if your singular goal was to have a higher GDP then when you compare a country where crack is legal to where it is outlawed, then in the place where it is legal the GDP would be higher because such transactions would be recorded, however the availability of the substance would have a profound impact on people's qualities of life, whether it would be worth is in the name of an abstract concept like freedom is not a clear cut choice, but I would say no.
When you want to challenge generally accepted definitions, you are arguing semantics. People often argue semantics when they have a weak position. I acknowledge that I am unlikely to pursuade you, but the reason in my opinion is more likely your belligerant stubborness than the weakness of my case.
I offered two sources for calling econmics a science. You provided a youtube link to a cartoon in rebuttal. You will have to do better than that.
Well I thought simply stating that actual economists don't see themselves as scientists would be enough, but apparently you hold Wikipedia to be a more accurate source.
"Hard science is a term used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences or physical sciences that are perceived to be more accurate than other sciences like the social sciences. The hard sciences usually rely on experimental, empirical, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity."
And what exactly are you trying to persuade me on?
stop being a petulant little prick and make a bloody point already.
Ad hominum attacks and grade school insults aren't going to get you far. They simply provide more indications of rhetorical weakness.
So now you seem to be saying that, yes, economics is a science, just not a "hard science."
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/07/is_economics_a_.html
"Is economics a science?
The fact that satists attempt to discredit economics is an indication of how thouroughly economics--whether neoclassical, austrian or Chicgaco school-- repudiates government intervention.
The Austrian School has accurately predicted the great depression, and the recession that we're having right now. Both are direct results of government interference.
There are thousands of variables in the economy, but they can be isolated when, say, looking at the value of the dollar. The dollar's value is a direct relation to the number of dollars in circulation compared to the number of goods available, and the demand for those dollars. When a country decides to stop trading in dollars and switches to the euro, we know that the dollar's value will drop because of the decreased demand. Its the same thing for the rest of the economy.
The only time economics looks like an art is when you're looking at Keynesian macroeconomics. This is just my speculation, but I think Keynes invented it for the sole purpose of justifying the central banks. I think this because it doesn't really work all that well, but it makes the central banks look like they're doing their job when they're clearly not. The dollar has lost 97% of its value since the Federal Reserve got its hands on it.
billyjoe knows what he is talking about.
My own economic views are probably closer to Austrian than anything else, but I have numerous disagreements. I don't believe that Central Banking causes Depressions because I've read about our country's economic history and found out that there were Depressions before the Great Depression (they hit during the terms of 2 of my favorite presidents, Van Buren and Cleveland, politically harming both men). I believe that the Central Bank's sole economic effect is to cause inflation, which gives the government more money to engage in counterproductive measures (such as the FDR and Hoover's New Deal, Nixon's price controls, and the current Foreclosure bill) and is basically a redistribution program that redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich (a reverse Robin Hood).
However, I mostly agree with Austrian economic theory. I agree that there is only economics, not macroeconomics and microeconomics and I agree with methodological individualism. I agree that most, if not all, government interventions don't work. However, I don't hold a religious belief in the infallibility of Austrian Economics, even though I accept that many things are true regardless of the place and time (such as destruction of life or property not being good for the economy, murder being immoral and economically damaging etc.).
I think you're right on everything but the pre-Fed depressions. Depression of 1807 was caused by Jefferson's Embargo Act, the Long Depression (1873-1896) was caused by the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange. But what caused the Great Depression? Imao, it was the expansion of the money supply throughout the twenties followed by a sharp contraction in '29. I could be wrong though. Its like you said, Austrian Economics isn't infallible. But I'd say it's definitely better than Keynesian.
Monetarists like Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman and the Chicago school he founded are kind of middle ground between Austians such as Ludwig Von Misesand Frederik Hayak on the one side and John Maynard Keyens on the other. Friedman criticized Keynes on his own terms, but--it has to be said-- failed to predict the present recession befor his death four years ago. Both Hayak and Friedman recieved Nobel prizes.
Keynes turned out to be wrong on many things, but he was largely responsible discrediting mercantilism, a horrible economic theory that has been resurected recently as neo-mercantilism.
Overall, I think the Austrians are closest to being on the right track. Good books to read in that line are ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Henry Hazlit, THE ROAD TO SURFDOM by F.A. Hayek, and for advanced students, HUMAN ACTION by Ludwig Von Mises.