What sort of science... (AKA the market made me do it)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

... allows people to come out with judgements solely based on some a priori political or sentimental-emotional view? Will we ever see a libertarian say "well, I disagree with the new deal in principle, but it sorted out the economy, thus it was a good thing" or a liberal say "well Keynes had a good idea, but it has proven to be unworkable in the modern economy?". Do these sentences even make sense, what sort of measuring device do we hold these 'truths' too?

And also what sort of science is one that holds a priori that there are 'solutions' to 'problems' (whatever that means and whatever they are) and that these solutions can only fit into a fixed system. There are only one type of solution, and that is my solutions. Whatever they be. See above.

Also what sort of science holds that anything which is outside it's particular sphere (however, again, we define that sphere) is of some different order, irrelevant by some arbitrary measurement. What indeed is an 'externality'? If, assuming many enviornmental scientists are right and the world will get hotter and hotter over the next 50-100 years, isn't that not a failure of this science and of knowledge in general to adapt to actual real world situation and not build intellectual castles in the air.

Finally what sort of science holds that it can explain the psychology of human action by external to humans 'things', indeed non-'real' things like 'the market' and 'the economy' (of a slight different ontological status to, say, the human brain or indeed a rug or a car or a factory)? And indeed what sort of science is it  that does this a priori, assuming it is the only plausible mirror for man, whoever he is.

[A18]

Please identify a significant, widely-accepted law of economics that you take issue with, and then explain in concrete terms where it goes wrong.

[Citizen James]

Economics is in essence a soft science (though I do not mean that in a pejorative sense).  It is a social science, in essence a form of applied sociology.   

While hard sciences are (mostly - outside the realm of quantum mechanics) deterministic and predictable - you can repeat an experiment over and over and always get the exact same results as long as you have the exact same conditions; soft sciences, due to a number of factors (even if you don't count free will, there are a massive number of conflicting factors influencing human behavior) which can change the outcomes of various experiments radically.   Not everyone goes all the way in the Milgram experiment, and others agree every time in the Asch experiments.

So while engineering can draw closely from the exacting methodology of physics, economics can only study trends and tendencies like sociology does.

I have noted that there does seem to be something of an inverse relationship between the hardness of a science and the passion people often put behind their positions.  I think there is a cognitive bias at work in that - a sort of compensating for the lack of predictable precision in results, but I could be mistaken and am not certain just how to phrase it.

Sometimes economic rules need to be revised because of other factors.  Take the law of supply and demand for example.  Sometimes an increase in demand can bring about a decrease in price because the higher demand justifies manufacturing on a larger scale and decreased per/item overhead in processing.   That's often why various nuts and bolts on military aircraft cost far more than their hardware store counterparts - even if they are made of the same material.

[Beet]

It's all we have, gully. It's all we have.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Please identify a significant, widely-accepted law of economics that you take issue with, and then explain in concrete terms where it goes wrong.

I will do this later when I feel more sane and intellectually composed. But I will ask the question:

Why does economics assume that 'problems' (however we define this) have solutions? Why is that the case? Why do 'solutions' have to be of a different type? Perhaps Monetarism works in certain scenarios and Keynesian policies work on other occasions? Why does the economy make a 'system'?

[Bono]

Please identify a significant, widely-accepted law of economics that you take issue with, and then explain in concrete terms where it goes wrong.

I will do this later when I feel more sane and intellectually composed. But I will ask the question:

Why does economics assume that 'problems' (however we define this) have solutions? Why is that the case? Why do 'solutions' have to be of a different type? Perhaps Monetarism works in certain scenarios and Keynesian policies work on other occasions? Why does the economy make a 'system'?

It doesn't. 

[Verily]

Economics is deterministic, too. It's just such a chaotic system we can't get a handle on the determining factors the way we can in, say, chemistry.

As for your first paragraph, there is never any logical reason to make those statements. On the other hand, it is perfectly sensible for different economic theories to work in different situations precisely because of the chaotic nature of economics. A very slight difference in initial conditions might mean a completely different approach is needed. Thus economic ideologies must by necessity be flawed, although they would not need be if we could somehow fully grasp the intricacies of economics. We haven't, at least not yet, and we may never do so.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Please identify a significant, widely-accepted law of economics that you take issue with, and then explain in concrete terms where it goes wrong.

I will do this later when I feel more sane and intellectually composed. But I will ask the question:

Why does economics assume that 'problems' (however we define this) have solutions? Why is that the case? Why do 'solutions' have to be of a different type? Perhaps Monetarism works in certain scenarios and Keynesian policies work on other occasions? Why does the economy make a 'system'?

Applying one set of principles at every downturn in the economy will never work.  Keynesian principles, and monetarism are both good ways to help bolster the economy in certain situations.

Keynesian policies of spending wouldn't have worked during the economic problems of the mid '70s-early '80s.. but they would work now, I believe.

Changing monetary policy and messing with the interest rate isn't all that effective in today's recession, but I think a large stimulus that got money out right away and put people to work would do wonders.

But economists can't seem to gauge that one philosophy isn't always the best.  Different solutions for different problems... we just need to recognize that the problem is often very different, just simply with similar effects (unemployment, depressed consumer spending, etc.)

[ag]

Vague discussions on blogs do not make a science. If you cared about physics and participated in physics blogs, you'd also here lots of nonsense there. Does it mean physics isn't science?

Actually, in academic economics "coming to judgements ... based on ... a priori ... views" is heavily discouraged

The rest of your post simply shows that you have know clue about economics. Nobody assumes anything about "existing solutions", I have no idea what you think economists believe to be irrelevant (externalities are not merely relevant, but crucially important, that's for sure), and, of course, no economist believes that human psychology is "explained" by markets (and yes, human psychology is incredibly important for economics). In other words, I have no clue what are you talking about: whatever it is, it's not economics, so, probably, irrelevant for this board.

[Citizen James]

Please identify a significant, widely-accepted law of economics that you take issue with, and then explain in concrete terms where it goes wrong.

I will do this later when I feel more sane and intellectually composed. But I will ask the question:

Why does economics assume that 'problems' (however we define this) have solutions? Why is that the case? Why do 'solutions' have to be of a different type? Perhaps Monetarism works in certain scenarios and Keynesian policies work on other occasions? Why does the economy make a 'system'?

Does it assume that all problems have solutions?

Engineering works with solving problems too - even recognizing that certain things (faster than light travel, anti-gravity) are probably impossible.

Economics studies phenomena far more complex (and chaotic) then physical events, and considers options to best address a situation to bring about whatever desired outcomes there are (which can be quite varied as well)

[Gustaf]

People often seem to confuse ideologically slanted views on economics with economics as a science. Economics as a science doesn't endorse supply-side or demand-side economics. As has been said, both can be used depending on what the problem is.

Like, if demand is too low, demand should be stimulated. If supply, then supply. Etc.

[A18]

Why does economics assume that 'problems' (however we define this) have solutions? Why is that the case? Why do 'solutions' have to be of a different type? Perhaps Monetarism works in certain scenarios and Keynesian policies work on other occasions? Why does the economy make a 'system'?

Economics doesn't assume that problems have solutions. On the contrary, it often teaches that a clear-cut "solution" to a problem is unobtainable.

What do you mean by a "system"?

[opebo]

It's all we have, gully. It's all we have.

A delusion is all you have, Beet?  Sounds about right.  All we have are arbitrary political choices, chosen by those who have the power to choose.  There is no objective 'science' to the matter at all.

Why does economics assume that 'problems' (however we define this) have solutions? Why is that the case? Why do 'solutions' have to be of a different type? Perhaps Monetarism works in certain scenarios and Keynesian policies work on other occasions? Why does the economy make a 'system'?

Actually what is considered a 'problem' depends entirely on your point of view - in other words the definition of 'problems' is a political act.  Of course most things that the working class consider to be problems are precisely what the owners prefer, and perhaps vice verse, though we'll never know as the converse will never be realized. 

[opebo]

Oh, and by the way, the economy is obviously a system - a political system.