What is Economics? BS? or Queen of Social Science?

[Econabcd]

:hmm:My question is what kind of knowledge can Economics provide us who are into economics. Are the iron rule of economic assumptions that people are rational, more is better, absolute selfish telling us anything about our real life? This financial crisis is a byproduct of neoclassical theories we learn in undergrad. I am beginning to think about what economics as a academic really is. Is it a just BS with some mathematics that makes it only look cool and objective? what do you guys think?

[diesel]

Is it a just BS with some mathematics that makes it only look cool and objective?

 

Erm. Yes. Which is why we love it.

[OneMoreEcon]

I have a BS in economics with some mathematics (a major, to be more specific). But I didn't realize it made me look cool or objective. In fact, I'm neither.

[GymShorts]

No one is saying that the assumption are 100% true. Nor are they saying that the consequence of a model are 100% true. However, they are helpful towards understanding reality.

 

For example, take the Capital Asset Pricing Model. It does not perfectly predict the price of stocks. There are other factors at play, and they assumptions are always true. However, it does do a good job at explaining why stocks with higher beta values have higher expected returns, and stocks with lower beta values have lower expected returns. The model isn't perfect; but it is useful.

 

Economic models are useful tools for analyzing the real world; they are not supposed to be perfect models of the real world. Humans simply are not smart enough to do that (yet).

[breakz]

Economic models are useful tools for analyzing the real world; they are not supposed to be perfect models of the real world. Humans simply are not smart enough to do that (yet).

 

Varian and David Romer both say the same thing. Models are tools for analytical thought, not evaluation of reality.

 

Anyway, economics deals with scarcity and how to maximize the benefits of limited resources given peoples' preferences. In summary: economics is not BS as much as the constant struggle to evaluate qualitative subjects with quantitative methods.

 

Hey, we're further ahead than sociology...we can unquestionably prove things from time to time. :p

[YoungEconomist]

What is Economics? BS? or Queen of Social Science?

 

If you want an honest answer to that question, why would you ask a group of aspiring economists? If you ask me, it's the queen of social science and I bet most on here will agree. ;) It'd be like asking your mom who the coolest kid in school is.

 

absolute selfish telling us anything about our real life?

 

I would say the "absolute selfishness" part is an unfair criticism of economics. Where in economics does it say people are completely selfish? Even neoclassical economic theory can deal with this by having one individual's well-being show up in anothers utility function.

 

Economic models are useful tools for analyzing the real world; they are not supposed to be perfect models of the real world. Humans simply are not smart enough to do that (yet).

 

I agree. It boils down to topics relating to philosophy of science. The reason people come up with models is for an unrealistic and simple view of the world. The key of a good model is not whether or not it has unrealistic components, but whether or not it can do a fairly good job of capturing some of the important variables, and whether or not it can explain and predict with reasonable accuracy. As scientists have said before, a model that took into account all the complexities of the real world would be useless because it would be just as complicated as the real world. You will find the same thing in physics or any other science for that matter. Anyway, I urge you to read this article, as many of these topics are discussed.

[Demisel]

I'm not even in economics, and I still think that economics is the queen of the social sciences (although my view is biased because I was in mathematics and I believe mathematics should be the language of every science, natural or social). Many social sciences are adopting the language of mathematics, but economics is still very far ahead in this race. Also, many if not all of the building blocks of modern theoretical social sciences (e.g. utility theory, decision theory, game theory) came from economics (well, technically, some of these constructs originally came from philosophy, but economists were the the first people who used them in a rigorous way). Anyway, if you're an economist, you should be very proud of your profession.

[unitroot]

It is incorrect to blame the current financial crises on the neoclassical economic theory, which is indeed the theory at the foundations of most of modern mainstream economics. All it says is decentralized free market outcomes will match optimal theoretic equilibria as long as some important assumptions are satisfied (perfect competition, perfect information, and no externalities). If those assumptions are not satisfied then the outcomes are not necessarily Pareto efficient. Moreover, the contention that Pareto efficient equilibria should be always preferred to non-Pareto efficient allocations is a very important question, yet economists rarely address it. In fact, one could argue that the answer is not even within the realm of economics. However, lots of people like to twist the ideas of classical economics (like some libertarians or self-style "conservatives") to assert that free, unregulated markets are always best for all parties involved, because, well that's what Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall or something like that, conveniently ignoring the fact that many real-world markets have externalities, agents with asymmetric market power, information, and other imperfections.

 

The funny thing is that while economists are being consulted a lot on the current financial crisis and asked for comments, most of them know very little about what's going on. The thing about neoclassical economics (and modern macroeconomics) is that to this day the economists are struggling to provide a satisfying theory of money. The new-Keynesian model is generating lots of attention, but it still said to be in a primitive stage. Little is understood about aggregate labor markets. Likewise, very little is understood about asset markets. There is no model of equity premium to this day that most economists would agree upon. 99% of macroeconomists rule out any possibility of price bubbles and such with mathematical assumptions before solving the model. We're basically learning by doing right now.

 

In my view, the primary blame for the crisis should be placed on irresponsible borrowers, the government, and the lack of regulation in the housing markets. The Wall Street was only a secondary enabler. People with so-so credit history who were betting on prices to continue rising were allowed to buy houses at the prices and interest rates they clearly could not afford. Many paid 0 down payment, which ironically made it easier for them to walk away. If people were required to put something like 20% or even 10% of the house value down, much craziness wouldn't happen. The local banks repackaged loans into non-transparent securities and sold to the Wall Street establishments (much of whom were clueless about what they're getting because of inept rating agencies).

 

American politicians who for years pursued populist legislation to increase home ownership among more and more people, including low income families, helping to create this price bubble. And therefore, much blame should be up on them as well. To this day many insist that any "bailout" package should allow the homeowners to keep their homes, conveniently not mentioning that their policies is what enabled many of those now insolvent households to buy houses they could not afford in the first place.

[buckykatt]

This financial crisis is a byproduct of neoclassical theories we learn in undergrad.

 

Erm... No.

 

But thanks for playing.

[Akwabaa]

Economics is not only descriptive, it is not only evaluative, it is at the same time constructive. Economists seek to fashion a world in the image of economic theory. how would you describe the Amish people in terms of current economic theory..........I am just asking.

[Harry Lime]

Unitrot nailed it. Anyway, this whole thread is moot because the real queen of the social sciences is gender studies, or as she likes to be called, "unisex monarch".

[YoungEconomist]

.....

[constrainedoptimizer]

It is incorrect to blame the current financial crises on the neoclassical economic theory, which is indeed the theory at the foundations of most of modern mainstream economics. All it says is decentralized free market outcomes will match optimal theoretic equilibria as long as some important assumptions are satisfied (perfect competition, perfect information, and no externalities). If those assumptions are not satisfied then the outcomes are not necessarily Pareto efficient. Moreover, the contention that Pareto efficient equilibria should be always preferred to non-Pareto efficient allocations is a very important question, yet economists rarely address it. In fact, one could argue that the answer is not even within the realm of economics. However, lots of people like to twist the ideas of classical economics (like some libertarians or self-style "conservatives") to assert that free, unregulated markets are always best for all parties involved, because, well that's what Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall or something like that, conveniently ignoring the fact that many real-world markets have externalities, agents with asymmetric market power, information, and other imperfections.

 

The funny thing is that while economists are being consulted a lot on the current financial crisis and asked for comments, most of them know very little about what's going on. The thing about neoclassical economics (and modern macroeconomics) is that to this day the economists are struggling to provide a satisfying theory of money. The new-Keynesian model is generating lots of attention, but it still said to be in a primitive stage. Little is understood about aggregate labor markets. Likewise, very little is understood about asset markets. There is no model of equity premium to this day that most economists would agree upon. 99% of macroeconomists rule out any possibility of price bubbles and such with mathematical assumptions before solving the model. We're basically learning by doing right now.

 

In my view, the primary blame for the crisis should be placed on irresponsible borrowers, the government, and the lack of regulation in the housing markets. The Wall Street was only a secondary enabler. People with so-so credit history who were betting on prices to continue rising were allowed to buy houses at the prices and interest rates they clearly could not afford. Many paid 0 down payment, which ironically made it easier for them to walk away. If people were required to put something like 20% or even 10% of the house value down, much craziness wouldn't happen. The local banks repackaged loans into non-transparent securities and sold to the Wall Street establishments (much of whom were clueless about what they're getting because of inept rating agencies).

 

American politicians who for years pursued populist legislation to increase home ownership among more and more people, including low income families, helping to create this price bubble. And therefore, much blame should be up on them as well. To this day many insist that any "bailout" package should allow the homeowners to keep their homes, conveniently not mentioning that their policies is what enabled many of those now insolvent households to buy houses they could not afford in the first place.

 

Interesting, Unitroot. I made a similar summary here .

[Visible Hand]

What do you guys exactly mean by "BS"?!

[reason]

BS is short for "bullshit".

 

If economics is the queen, then what is the king?

 

I wonder how other social sciences regard economics. Generally, I think students of economics are relatively arrogant towards other professions.

[jeeves0923]

 

If economics is the queen, then what is the king?

 

I wonder how other social sciences regard economics. Generally, I think students of economics are relatively arrogant towards other professions.

 

Perhaps politicians are the king. Social scientists determine what ideas are good, and politicians are the 'deciders.' The woman is always right, but the man insists on it being his decision... and if he's lost, no way he's asking for directions!

 

In any event... pretty weak analogy... I don't live up to Harry Lime's standard of humor...

[notacolour]

I found a typo. This:

Generally, I think students of economics are relatively arrogant towards other professions.

should read:

Generally, I think students of economics are relatively arrogant.

[boldwolf]

Now that is funny!

 

Maybe it's the nature of the profession. You need to have strong blocking skills and fast jabs to survive. I doubt if some other profession has as many disagreements and fiery debates like economics.

 

I've also seen math students/professor making fun of engineers...

[jeeves0923]

Now that is funny!

 

Maybe it's the nature of the profession. You need to have strong blocking skills and fast jabs to survive. I doubt if some other profession has as many disagreements and fiery debates like economics.

 

I've also seen math students/professor making fun of engineers...

 

To some extent, most fields are pretty self righteous. Of course people think their own particular field is the best, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it.

 

I have a great friend who is a Sociologist, and he spends most of his time talking about how mathematical rigor is the worst thing ever to hit social science. I know engineers who swear that any person who has a brain ought to be an engineer, otherwise they are wasting their talent on intellectual masturbation. I know other engineers who just think anyone who is not an engineer must have no brain because if they had one, they would make the "obvious" choice to be engineers.

 

Just human nature, I'd say, and it is probably most defined among people who have dedicated their lives to one particular discipline.

 

I think it is all kind of silly. We all produce very different kinds of information from which we learn very different kinds of things. It's only a waste of time if we learn nothing. :2cents:

[boldwolf]

Yeah jeeves you're right. But I was more concerned about notacolor's "correction":

 

Quote:

Generally, I think students of economics are relatively arrogant.

 

 

It might be true but I dont see it as bad given the nature of the profession.

[jeeves0923]

No I agree. Very funny :-)

[YoungEconomist]

To some extent, most fields are pretty self righteous. Of course people think their own particular field is the best, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen it.

 

I have a great friend who is a Sociologist, and he spends most of his time talking about how mathematical rigor is the worst thing ever to hit social science. I know engineers who swear that any person who has a brain ought to be an engineer, otherwise they are wasting their talent on intellectual masturbation. I know other engineers who just think anyone who is not an engineer must have no brain because if they had one, they would make the "obvious" choice to be engineers.

 

Just human nature, I'd say, and it is probably most defined among people who have dedicated their lives to one particular discipline.

 

I think it is all kind of silly. We all produce very different kinds of information from which we learn very different kinds of things. It's only a waste of time if we learn nothing. :2cents:

 

Totally agree with everything you said. Whether we're talking about mathematicians, physicists, engineers, economists, sociologists, etc, they all have one thing in common; they think their discipline is the best. Some of them think their field is the best because it takes the most brain power, while others think their field is the best because it's the most insightful, relevant, and/or important.

 

I even notice myself doing this from time to time, and I have to remind myself how self-serving my beliefs (and everyone elses) are, and try to come back down to earth.

 

Even within economics there seems to be a similar thing going on about what field or profession you choose. For example, think about the beliefs economists hold in regards to economists at teaching universities vs lecturers vs research professors vs various governmental economists vs private sector economists vs etc.

[rohan5271]

I very much agree with the fact that neo-classical economics is essential for building analytical frameworks for understanding the importance of real variables.But my major concern is that modern economics is considering analytical frameworks as ends rather than means to achieve solutions to economic problems.Economics as a subject is fast becoming mechanical (inhuman in some ways as mere abstractions) rather than ushering healthy debates on modern day's greatest economic problems (especially from the way it is being taught in universities).It is high time that the heterodox and the more mainstream branches of economics join hands in finding a middle path on how humanly yet analytically should we approach economics.

[jeeves0923]

I very much agree with the fact that neo-classical economics is essential for building analytical frameworks for understanding the importance of real variables.But my major concern is that modern economics is considering analytical frameworks as ends rather than means to achieve solutions to economic problems.Economics as a subject is fast becoming mechanical (inhuman in some ways as mere abstractions) rather than ushering healthy debates on modern day's greatest economic problems (especially from the way it is being taught in universities).It is high time that the heterodox and the more mainstream branches of economics join hands in finding a middle path on how humanly yet analytically should we approach economics.

 

This is akin to saying that abstract math isn't applicable enough... abstract theory has its place and it is an end for many economists. There's NOTHING wrong with that in my opinion. If there isn't anyone willing to be mechanical, the field will be in trouble.

 

The two are complements, not substitutes. Pure research with no foreseeable direct application is still worthwhile in my opinion. Maybe there is a huge advancement in theory that doesn't seem applicable for another 100 years and then it becomes so. Whatever.

 

As for the heterodox argument, there have been threads on here before. It is possible that one day it will no longer be considered heterodox. We've seen theories move from heterodox to mainstream. It just takes convincing. I don't think we should automatically give credence to heterodox economics without some serious convincing. If the convincing can be done, that absolutely, bring it on. Everything that is mainstream now once had to be convincingly argued to get where it is.

[rohan5271]

This is akin to saying that abstract math isn't applicable enough... abstract theory has its place and it is an end for many economists. There's NOTHING wrong with that in my opinion. If there isn't anyone willing to be mechanical, the field will be in trouble.

 

The two are complements, not substitutes. Pure research with no foreseeable direct application is still worthwhile in my opinion. Maybe there is a huge advancement in theory that doesn't seem applicable for another 100 years and then it becomes so. Whatever.

 

As for the heterodox argument, there have been threads on here before. It is possible that one day it will no longer be considered heterodox. We've seen theories move from heterodox to mainstream. It just takes convincing. I don't think we should automatically give credence to heterodox economics without some serious convincing. If the convincing can be done, that absolutely, bring it on. Everything that is mainstream now once had to be convincingly argued to get where it is.

 

Well abstract theory may be good when it comes to maths.But I am not discussing the usefulness of abstract mathematics. Economics is a subject that deals with complex human interactions which are not abstract.They are very much observable in real life and do not exist just in theory.Hence stating "abstract math is not applicable enough" akin to my previous statement is not a right corollary.Human interactions is more than mere abstractions.I also do not agree that a purely mechanized approach to economics is good for the subject.Human beings are neither abstract nor machines.The study of our behavior is not exact science.

 

Secondly,when I talked about heterodox and mainstream school of thoughts joining hands,I was talking about a confluence of their approaches and not accepting or rejecting heterodox theories into mainstream.While heterodox economics focuses on an interdisciplinary approach to economic modeling within a political economy paradigm, the mainstream uses a more abstract and a mathematically stylized approach to economic modeling.Both these have their pros and cons.Thus if economics needs to progress as a discipline that studies human interactions on account of scarce resources we need the strengths of both the mainstream and heterodox.