Economists are the cleverest guys in the room..they never see anything coming, and never really know why anything happened.
If economists were scientists we'd still be disembowlling chickens and goats as part of our strategic defence review and sacrificing children to keep the Harvest Gods happy.....
lol, its funny, any maybe its true. its a grey area, i ll give you that, but IMO the most revolutionary idea in the history of humanity is .... not the idea of using tools ... not the idea of using fire ... not the idea of using the wheel ... but the idea of money... and with the birth of money came the birth of advanced civilization and economics. its just that adam smith formalized it, streamlined it. without economics ... none of the advancements in science would be possible.
@G0ttaBeFresh are you too retarded :D for example the scientist who study the human brain work in a field that is almost to infinity complex ..have you even seen lectures about such hard fields..claiming this bullshit about economics get lost :D economics is for children
@thelion2430 You mean neurology? The study of how people produce and distribute resources is economics. I guess it could be a sub category of social science but science simply means knowledge. Garbology for example is the science of waste management. Just because one thing is more complex than another doesn't mean it's not science.
@G0ttaBeFresh "Just because one thing is more complex than another doesn't mean it's not science."and i agree but the claim was that economics is the most complex of all and this is nonsense.And economics is a part of social science.i would say real science is waht goes under Natural Science.Economics deals with a made up system ..Look what other fields go under Social science " History " , "Law " this are not science...the same way is economics not real science
What is more, the Modern Money Mechanics made the banks all over the world to behave as complete and rounded idiots, delaying ordinary business transactions and money transfers with months and at the same time granting loans to people who do not qualify to receive any of the kind ... and who are in default of the previous two ones.
MMMs built a five-story parasitic 'financial system', which is not doing anything else besides unfair re-distribution of the economic wealth by means of 'dark pools'.
RE: 'Economics is the reason all of you guys have a job.'
.. in the past. The idea of Modern Money Mechanics is to wipe out all those jobs. The MMMs is the greatest evil ever existed on the earth. After robbing the middle class all over the world the top designers of MMMs are now planning how to rob the next class. All this Mumbo Jumbo about 2012, how the Coronary Mass Ejection of the Sun will wipe out the satellites of the earth is an approach for the development of Neo-Modern Money Mechanics.
Economic winners also tend to be huge dicks. Seriously, I remember one of them saying that the poor should have the biggest tax burden so they would have an incentive to work harder. I dont think he understands what "incentive" means.
There is a clear distinction between hard and soft sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology (and to a certain extend psychology, as far as it is based on biological research) are the so called hard sciences. Soft sciences are basically the social sciences: Sociology, economics, psychology, political science etc. This group of disciples use the scientific method, however, due to the nature of the subjects researched, they cannot produce hard and reliable scientific laws to the extend physics can.
Economics is scientific in the sense that it uses the scientific method, its theories can be refuted, and they can also predict, to a certain extend only, the trend that the economy will take according to already known data or specific policies that are pursued. To compare it however with any hard science its utter nonsense - it is simply too difficult for economics to reach that level of scientific prediction and reliability.
There shouldn't be a Nobel price in economics, because, as Hayek, himself a Nobel price winner, noted, Nobel price winners in economics gain an influence in political issues through the prestige of the price, which no other winner is able to receive. This can be proven dangerous and further infiltrates politics into the Nobel price process.
@PleomaxDVDRW That's because in upper level...economics using more Math than any Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, Finance etc...the basic things like multivariable Calculus, linear algebra or differential equations aren't even worth mentioning..its pretty much applied Mathematics.
@A3r03c0n5 What do you think engineering and physics majors do? Both are applied science using mathematics from day one in each majors. Going through that myself, I can say the math never ends.
@A3r03c0n5 You know its funny that Pleaomaxdvdrw says econmics uses more math than any physics. SO tell me than why my physics requires Calculus 1 and people who can barely pass algebra are in my economics elective. Engineering for the win ^.^
@A3r03c0n5 wtf are you talking about :D " That's because in upper level...economics using more Math than any Physics, Engineering, Chemistry"...are you stupid ?? pls people dont make ignorant claims ...economics using more Math than any Physics, Engineering, Chemistry omg you even know what you are claiming here :D you even know what is done in Physics and Engineering...in case you want claim something back..pls show evidence for your claim or dont even start to respond :D
@PleomaxDVDRW ... only that there is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in Economics, there is only the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".
Saying economics isn't a science is like saying psychology isn't a science. They aren't natural/hard sciences, but they are social/soft sciences. Much, if not all, of their theories can not be proven in an experimental setting. Prominent economic thought immediately affects the life of every person living in advanced nations and the subject's importance should not be marginalized.
Maybe you should read this 'between the lines'. Here 'Dear Sir' means that it doesn't matter how spontaneous and non-spontaneous the 'order of the market' is, and how free and non-free is the choice, the system is foredoomed to fail onto the moment of its design and development (as Modern Money Mechanics), because it has a mathematical model, but unfortunately nobody has taken any efforts to study it in advance.
BTW the sentences start with capital letter and end with full stop.
@ChaosDynamics yes. there is a lot of rubbish that appeals to emotion rather than reason in terms of politics. socialism is one- it appeals to emotion, largely.
'des Kapital' by marx is actually a good book, but there are very deep fallacies involved with his take on economics- he treats as hard science.
i can recommend two books 'the law' by Bastiat. and 'economics in one lesson' by Hazlitt. and you will see how Austrian economics, for one, is pretty much like atheism is the 1800s
I understand your point but with regards to socialism it does work in some cases. I wouldn't go so far as to say everything socialist works, that would be a dogmatic assumption :P and quite contrary to fact. Also to assume that capitalism is the only economic system that can work isn't 100% correct either. I'll have to look into Austrian economics a little more, admittedly I'm not that proficient in economics.
@TheAttackRat Though Austrian Economics is interesting and has a lot to say of the nature of mankind, there is no empirical evidence that proves it's superiority over Keynesian/Classical economics. Much like all grand economic theories it's had some parts vindicated and some parts "disproven". The idea that the price of a good is all the information needed took a hit in the last financial crisis.
There are several boks out there comparing different economics systems (I'll have a look at the books/links you recommended TheAttackRat). Three I found informative are:
to compare Austrian Economics and Classical and Keynesian Economics:
The Austrian School by Soto
to compare Classical and Keynesian Economics:
How Markets Fail by John Cassidy
to compare (mainly) Keynesian/Classical Economics and Socialism:
The Economics of the Good Society by Joseph S. Berliner
Putting the economy to drive along infinite geometric series of 9 (fractional banking system), power series of the compound interest (attached to time) and financial gambling of any kind at the stock exchanges could not be free market, free choice, and free trade from any point of view.
What about the 'free trading' of the High Frequency Trading systems run on mathematical algorithms & relying on advantage of msec-where is the choice and where is the 'free market', if any
Scott was probably mocking natural scientists low views on economics, judging by some of his blog material he seem much more like an uncritical fundamentalist of economic orthodoxy. But this video still speaks the truth even if it's unintentionally so.
Economics has been a topic of debate since the Ancient Greeks and is still an important field that has gone through mathematical, statistical and analytical inference. Now I may be biased because I'm getting my Masters in Economics, but though economics is not a traditional "hard" science, it's studies impact many people in the same manner as hard sciences. Those who would argue economics "is not a science" need to take this into account and make a more informed, less myopic, decision.
Also, just because an economist studies some policy doesn't mean that their suggestions will actually be adhered to. Many economists get muted by the business and government world and have to resort to less than scrupulous forecasting. It's not that all economists are incapable of proper forecasting or empiric research; it's the fact that the ones who do a piss poor job make the ones who actually do it for the love of the science look less reliable on the whole. A couple bad eggs, so to speak.
To simply reply to the myriad grievances about economics espoused in support of this simple joke from Dilbert - Econometrics is empirical economic work. Econometrics can be used and has been used to legitimately forecast future outcomes.
Also, the sum of economics isn't limited to modern neoclassicalism nor is it confined strictly to Keynesianism. Like any field, focusing on the parts instead of the sum will invariably lead to faulty assumptions about the picture.
I also want to say that economics is not entirely about money, it's about civilized human interaction. Is it possible to have human civilized human interaction without some kind of economy? No, I don't think so. Economists study this phenomenon. I also don't see where people are coming from blaming public policy on economists
Quit your bitching, yes econ is hard in the upper levels, but it is something that cannot be tested very well in a large scale. Economics is a social science unlike physics and chemistry, no amount of math is going to change that, so deal with it.
There are very good reasons to blame central banking and public policy economists who are often no more than faulty justifications for government intervention and expansion. I'm talking macro though, micro econ is awesome.
so you're saying using maths and creating a whole bunch of unrealistic assumptions creating a fantasy world "Planet Economics for Nerds", we can get closer to understanding how resources should be allocated? knowing what you have just derived and proved in 10 pages will no way work in the real world?
A lot of these comments are very uneducated remarks about the nature of economics. First of all, economics is definitely a science - in the full sense of the term. There is a distinction between positive economics and normative economics - positive economics is based on empirical evidence.
Just because empirically-derived data is taken a crunched through a bunch of equations does not mean what you get out the other side is scientifically valid. To be valid, a scientific theory must be A) testable; it must posit things that can be substantiated or refuted with contrary evidence and B) it must be able to make predictions about future outcomes based on the theoretical models that have been established. Mainstream macroeconomics fails both of these tests.
I can see what you're saying but there are some limitations to your reasoning. A) It would be impossible to "test" on a society economic theories, but we can analyze the effects of economic policy. B) Some economic claims can be tested to produce predictions. For example, the great depression is thought to be the result of a contraction in money supply. We did the opposite in this recession and had a much better outcome, and can assume trying this again would work.
it's too soon to say that the results of the massive monetary expansion have been better, because we haven't come out the other side yet. Unemployment appears to be lower at 10% than the early years of the GD, but some of this "employment" is illusory - it was stimulated by the monetary expansion and isn't sustainable without this artificial stimulus. Also, much of the money is sitting in the banks and when they start lending again, we will see huge price inflation, possibly hyper-inflation.
Hyperinflation is unlikely considering that the recovery is expected to be steady and the Fed will increase interest rates and reserve requirements to check inflation as spending and employment go up. I understand it's a tough idea to sell but considering nearly identical circumstances between the GD and this recession the Fed would have been foolish not to act differently. True much of the demand is supported through public spending but once inventories sell firms will have to hire again.
Your assumption is that contraction of the money supply and reduced government spending is what exacerbated the GD. Contraction of the money supply simply reflected peoples' desire to defer consumption to a later date - which sends important signals to the economy, it isn't simply "lack of spending / demand". As for reduced govt. spending, Herbert Hoover (despite popular myth) engaged in huge deficit and stimulus spending as well as wage and price controls - to no avail.
Didn't mention government spending, though a contraction of the money supply did contribute (GD was not the cause of a single event) when a run on banks rendered many bankrupt. Also consumers don't control the money supply, they are more the catalyst that impacts the velocity of money so money supply can go up/down but it's up to consumers if they wish to spend. Hoover's efforts though did not have a huge impact as did the increased production for WWII which government funded.
Demand that is supported by "public spending" doesn't reflect real factors in the economy - in fact it is more likely to prop-up things the market would've said "no" to. For example, recent interest rate policy and tax credits have induced the housing industry to build again. What possible benefit is it to society to keep building homes when we already overbuilt by several million homes that nobody wants or can afford? That isn't productive, it's a waste of resources.
Unfortunately there are wastes that must be addressed with an increase in government spending, though the overall impact is positive. In a case like this, as in GD, we have an excess in supply. If government creates more demand, that will bring down inventories and firms will hire more people to produce goods. In turn those that were once unemployed will earn income and begin to spend. In a case like the 70's stagflation there was too much demand, so reduce demand/increase supply.
In the case of the housing market government creates the illusion of more "demand" where none exists by inducing builders to build houses again. You speak of people being hired once inventories are reduced, but in the case housing, we already have several million houses that will never be bought. Please explain the non-depression of 1920-21, which was initially a sharper contraction than 1929, but was over in 18 months despite govt. budget cuts, no stimulus and no monetary expansion.
You're committing a "fallacy of composition" between housing and government spending and should consider overall effect. Though no fiscal policy, an active monetary policy through lower interest rates helped exit 1920-21 recession by promoting increased monetary flows through consumer/producer borrowing. I'm not stating that spending will cure all recessions but it's a "tool" to use that can be beneficial if used properly. Sometimes you use it and sometimes you do something else.
the current housing market and government spending are closely connected - perhaps you've heard of the homebuyer tax credit - a tax credit to buy a home is de facto government spending, no different than if the government said, "we'll give you $8,000 cash if you promise to buy a home". As for interest rate policy helping to exit the 1920-21 downturn, it would be an interesting theory if it weren't impossible - the Fed didn't begin open market operations until 1922.
This comes back to your first argument that economics is not a science. I think our argument (which by the way I thank you for your inputs and time) proves otherwise. We debate various models and methods for testing certain outcomes which can be true or false based upon our conclusions. How is this different from any other physical science? Just because models are complex doesn't mean it can't be a science. I mean you can apply thermodynamics to economics, look up Paul Samuelson.
To add to the 1920-21 Question, it was also the cause of a transition from a wartime to peacetime economy. Demobilized soldiers led a surge in labor force which lowered wages and prices quickly (no min-wage rate at time). Under deflationary pressures people assume continual price decline and don't spend, such was the fear in beginning of present recession. Prices can only fall so much until people buy again, and lower interest rates can stifle deflation and increase demand for labor and goods
I meant you're argument that "some waste in the housing market means the entire stimulus is a waste." The tax-credit was to stabilize the housing market by increasing demand to stifle housing deflation and only went to first time buyers who may choose to purchase new or existing homes.
I checked the data, If you look at the discount rate for the fed (st. louis data) it jumps from 4.75 to 6.00 , then decreased during the 1920-22 period. Check out FRED under historical discount rates.
Several hypotheses in mainstream (and austrian) economics actually *are* refuted as of (among other things) the current crisis, neatly summarized in John Quiggins ''Refuted economic doctrines'' series of blog entries. As of now though, the field is just afriad to adpat since it'd have to admit to so many errors, and it would be too much work trying to replace them with scientifically sound theories.
Quiggin's refutation of Austrian theory totally misses the mark. Go to Mises-dot-org and look up daily article 3466. That article deftly shows how Quiggin's assessment of ABCT is off-base, as Quiggin misconstrues several major points of Austrian theory. This article should help you understand why Austrian theory has not been refuted by current events. I agree that the field of economics will be unwilling to change and won't abandon their penchant for pseudo-scientific number crunching.
Due to the subjectivity of human wants and needs, the only way economics can be made empirically sound is for its practitioners to abandon their meaningless mathematical modeling and rethink their mechanistic view of "the economy". Their belief that we can treat the economy like some kind of machine and tinker with the gears and dials using public policy, (that is, force), and manipulation of money and interest rates (that is, fraud) has been an utter disaster over the past century.
@gergenheimer You mean to get rid of any attempts at mathematical modeling entirely? Even if the models to do not stand up to the relevant sense data, surely one can build other models and then test them. By abandoning mathematics we loose all sense of degree.
Also, reagarding the second half of your comment, are you saying the idea that economy reacts to public policy is false? That the effects of public policy be undesirable is one thing, but to say it has zero effects is demonstrably false.
The need for mathematical modeling and the testing of those models rests on the assumption that we can/should "manage" the economy, rather than trusting the spontaneous order of markets and the collective free choices of human beings. I reject this assumption. My points about public policy are that it is morally tainted because it relies on coercion (violence), plus it rarely achieves the intended results, certainly not without unintended (sometimes worse) side effects.
@gergenheimer Does it now? In the same way that we model the movement of astrological bodies because we wish to "manage" them? Simply seeking to understand and gain insight has nothing to do with? Or the idea that we should investigate because we wish to verify that markets indeed have the consequences we desire?
Recent history shows full-well that politicians salivate at the prospect of using the "insights" of economic "science" to sell their power-grabs and social engineering schemes, and egocentric, self-interested academic economists are more than willing to play along. Tell me, what insights have we gained from the century of mathematical empiricism in economics? That war and destruction are GOOD for prosperity? That it makes sense to pay farmers not to grow crops or pay workers not to work?
@gergenheimer While war and destruction can increase economic activity, it is quite a stretch to say it increased overall human welfare (if that is what you mean by prosperity). Although it does increase the the welfare of the weapon factory owners.
On the other point however, the is an argument for paying farmers even during seasons where they are not productive in order to deter petty crime. But of course such would not be an optimal scenario for the nation wishing to maximize output.
@dadumbazz But if you have studied beyond econ 101 you know that GDP per capita is only a good measure of the standard of living if ceteris paribus. But of course in the real world that condition is simply not held.
@Ilikemustard what comment are you responding to? Not that it matters, since you will no doubt make some inane statement worthy of a fifth-grader (or Paul Krugman). If you have any wits about you, you will refrain from embarrassing yourself further, but since you deemed "No it doesn't fail them you fucking retard" a worthy retort I don't hold out much hope for your judgement. Do us all a favor and stay in the shallow end of the IQ pool where you won't drown.
@gergenheimer Not quite. The reason a model fails is not all variables are accounted and cannot possibly be. If economics is not a science then neither is meteorology
@H1TMANactual incorrect. The distinct difference is that it is theoretically possible for meteorology to make accurate predictions - if it had perfect information available. Economic behavior is wholly different - human beings make economic decisions based on subjective, unmeasurable values. If you buy a bottle of water for $1.00, and I buy an identical $1.00 bottle of water after being lost in the desert, economic "science" says these transactions are the same. Common sense says otherwise.
@gergenheimer nope incorrect on both. it is not even theoretically possible for meteorology to make accurate predictions. for starters, there are no models that take into account EVERY variable. and the only thing economic models can't predict is human behavior i.e consumers
and i didn't understand your water analogy, plz reword them
@H1TMANactual It is THEORETICALLY possible for meteorology to make accurate predictions, if it had perfect info (Note, I didn't say it was ACTUALLY possible to have perfect info or perfect models.) By contrast, the fact that economic models can't measure or account for human subjective behavior is precisely why they aren't scientifically valid - after all, economics is supposed to explain/predict a certain type of human human behavior, and it fails because subjective values can't be measured.
@H1TMANactual The water example was to illustrate the subjectivity and contextual nature of human economic behavior. If you spend $1.00 for a bottle of water to have with your lunch, and I spend a dollar for an identical bottle of water after dying of thirst in the desert for several days, economic "science" tells us the "value" of both bottles of water is the same - $1.00. Obviously, the water has much more value to me, even though I paid the same nominal price. Macro-economics ignores this.
@gergenheimer I just answered that. For it to be theoretically accurate for starters models have to account for all variables that effect the weather, and there are no models that does that. So even if all info was available, there are no models to plug it into
yes the value is the same. because the value of a product is based on market appraisal not your personal feelings. for example the dollar in your wallet ceases to have value if the dollar collapsed and it becomes a piece of paper
@H1TMANactual Wrong. Value is a subjective, not objective, concept. Now imagine that the store clerk can see that I'm desperate for water and he decides to charge me $10 for the bottle of water. I don't think twice about it and I pay the $10. By your way of thinking, I should value the water 10 times as much because I paid 10 times the price. This is, of course, absurd. I value the water because it brings me back to health, not because of how much I paid for it.
@gergenheimer Once again I already answered that. Value is objective. It's simply based on supply and demand and the store clerk can see that the demand has just gone up when you need the water to live.
@H1TMANactual You are claiming that the "objective" value of a good is obtained through subjective means. This is a contradiction in terms. (Objective - adjective: existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject) If value were objective it would be the same regardless of context or special circumstances. My water example disproves the concept of objective value for even the simplest transactions.
Value is always objective though it may be subjective to you. It's dependent on the subjective evaluation by the majority i.e demand but then an objective value is established. Like in your water example, though it was priceless for you, you still put a $10 price on it
@H1TMANactual Let's try a different thought experiment. I'm hungry for a snack. I go to the store. They don't have my favorite candy, Snickers, so I buy my second favorite, Mars, for $1.00. On the way home, I stop to visit a friend. He has a Snickers, which he bought for $1.00, but his favorite candy is Mars. Your theory of "objective" value is unable to explain why we would want to exchange candy, but the answer is obvious. Even though the prices paid were the same, the values are different.
the definition of a Science - (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1] Certainly Economics falls within this definition. It is not a natural science but a social science.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
economics is a science. economics is the study of natural social phenomenon related to the transfer and flow of money. recently this study has evolved to be heavily dependent on mathematics, similar to other sciences. you can't tell me that taking a natural phenomenon and developing a complex mathematical function to predict future social behavior is not a science.
If economics is a science, economics as a science has failed the world on an epic scale. Chemistry, physics, math, and medicine have not failed the world as a whole in the last 100 years. Then again, one of the world's most successful economists (Deming) was actually a statistician and engineer. Go figure.
What the hell are you talking about? How exactly has "economics" failed the world? George Bush might've failed the world, but how has economics failed the world? How about chemistry and the Nazi regime? Did chemistry fail the world then? No, that's a ridiculous thing to say
Well you're definition of failed is too broad I think. I mean if you look at nuclear power it has the potential to destroy the world. However power is only harmful if in the hands of negligent people who don't care.
Economics works in much the same way. easy credit, artificially low interest rates for too long a period and lower regulations on financial institutions led to the depression and the causes were ignored by those with power. It's not economics that fails, it's people.
Economics is based on the assumption that people behave rationally, which has been completely proven false. Imagine if mathematics included in its underlying assumptions a false statement, like "if a, then b. b is true, therefore a is true." Many of the conclusions from complex models will still be true, but some will not and it may not be readily apparant which ones are false. If economics is to be regarded as a science, it has to replace rationality with the way people really behave.
If people are allowed to live their economic lives as they choose, and they choose the things they prefer over the things they don't, how is that not rational? I agree that economics is not an empirical science, but rationality is not disproved just because you think people make "bad" decisions. Economists try to lump human beings into one-size-fits-all aggregates based on the fallacy that wealth is measured in piles of money, rather than subjective values.
In economics, rationality is defined as people maximizing their utility based on their preferences. My point is that people do not do this. They satisfice rather than maximize, and therefore do not behave rationally according to the definition used by economics. Economists put no subjective judgement on what people's preferences are, only whether they pursue them or not rationally, which they don't.
If value was only based on utility then your denial of the rationality of human behavior would be correct, but utility is not the only measure of value. If someone pays $100 for a Sammy Sosa baseball card, it is because they value it more than the other things they could do with that $100 - by their values they have become more wealthy. It is not the place of you (or economists) to say they behaved irrationally just because you wouldn't have done the same thing.
I didn't say people always behave irrationally, and said they don't always behave rationally, as economics assumes they do. And I never said purchasing baseball cards is irrational, because if the utility derived from owning the cards is greater than $100, this is a rational choice. However, we see drastic differences between Western nations' organ donation programs when the only difference between them is whether the programs are opt-in or opt-out. If people are rational it should not matter
I think where you are making a logical mis-step is in the assumption that economics assumes rational behavior. Mainstream economics makes no such assumption nor do mainstream economists care about rational behavior. Keynesianism, the prevailing economic paradigm says that the only thing that matters is price stability and aggregate spending. It doesn't matter to Keyensians that rational people have decided to save instead of spend, they think that the only criteria is spending - rational or not.
Take any economics 101 course and within the first week the professor will tell you that in economics, agents are assumed to be rational in order to make the models work. As for Keynsianism vs. classical economics, both make the same basic assumptions, but draw different conclusions. To draw again from the mathematics parallel, these two camps are trying to figure out calculus when they are working with a faulty assumption. The debate exists because the models do not portray reality.
I'm not sure what school of economics you mean by "classical" - certainly not the Austrian school, which shares NO basic assumptions with Keynesianism. Mainstream economics may pay lip service to the assumption of rational behavior, but it promptly throws that assumption out the window when it lumps human beings into sanitized, meaningless spending aggregates where subjective value has been tossed-aside, and treats all forms of rational savings and deferred consumption as "animal spirits".
one simple word you are missing in this assumption is 'self'. It is based on the fact that agents act in rational self interest and they do. You do whatever you want to fulfill your self interest. If you didn't than you would not have the goods and services you surround yourself with and you wouldn't be happy. The assumption is correct that people will act in a rational self interest. Rationality is in the eyes of the beholder.
First, because mainstream economic science fails to have any predictive value - all one has to do is look at the dotcom and housing bubbles to see the failure of "empirical" economic science. Number two, economics fails as an empirical science because in order to parrot the hard sciences it is forced to ignore subjective value. Human beings act to improve their lives based on the things they value. These values cannot be measured only in terms of money and are thus ignored by (most) economists.
There are predictive values in economics. 1) Raising interest rates lowers lending and vise-versa 2) Appreciation in a nations currency renders exports less attractive to foreign buyers, and the opposite for depreciating currency 3) people tend to save rather than spend at the start of a recession and deflation is a danger so you must halt it. Some economists may ignore non-monetary value but that doesn't mean the whole discipline isn't a science.
It seems pretty clear to me that the predictive tools of mainstream, "scientific" economics have a dismal record, from failing to explain the downturn of 1920-21, to failing to pull us out of the GD for a decade, predicting a huge depression at the end of WW2 that never came, failing to see the housing bubble, etc. By contrast, the Austrian School has had great predictive success for a century and they would be the first to insist that economics can't be an purely empirical science.
I'm not fond of Keynesian vs Austrian vs Monetarist vs etc arguments because all schools of economic thought have tools and views that should be considered when appropriate. Using one method to solve multiple problems doesn't work no matter what ideology you subscribe to. If Austrians did predict something, then they must have used scientific methods of observation to show that expansionary monetary booms lead to recessions (which I can see), which adds credence to economics being a science.
Austrians say they predict a recession whenever there's expansionary monetary policy and an asset bubble (which is great so that should be considered), but they have yet to solve an economic problem. I think it sucks that Austrian views are usually discounted, but to completely bash mainstream economic thought and is myopic. I don't see Austrians predicting ends to recessions or postulating solutions. All economic thought has problems to address, but should never be discounted.
@getnbusy2nite Have you seen Thomas E. Woods speech on the economic crisis & Federal Reserve? [watch?v=CF27CSIofvg] In it he argues that the boom/bust economic cycle is the direct result of the central banks manipulation of the interest rate and that the solution is to allow the "price" of money to be set by supply and demand. Sounds like a solution to an economic problem to me.
@studentofsmith Austrians don't like Central Banks and would like to see them go, which is problematic to their theory since business cycles predate central banking. The price of money, or interest, should be codified by natural supply and demand...great
But now what determines the supply of money? How do we codify money quantity without a central bank or entity? Many banks could print their own or be subject to a gold standard but research the Bank Charter Act of 1844 and that's problematic.
@studentofsmith btw don't give me this ultra right wing rubbish...I want non-biased, non-partisan, left/right material if you would like to cite some work please. I'm not a liberal, a Keynesian, an Austrian, I'm just a guy that loves economics (with a grad degree in it) and I'm just interested in facts please.
@studentofsmith Also he makes a mention of Hayek's Market Coordination problem in Video 3/7. The Central Bank doesn't just arbitrarily lower interest rates, they do so only after a recession or in a desire to make lending easier to spur growth in a downturn. In recessions people naturally save for rainy days and are not consuming, so the fed dropping interest rates is in line with the market at that time.
However, I will say the danger is they may leave it low for too long a period.
@studentofsmith I'm sorry I'm being rude and not giving you a chance to respond...you just caught me on one of my craze learning days. I do enjoy economics and have been purposely looking for intellectual stimulation of late. I'll offer a chance for a comment and thank you for your interest. I hope we can both learn from this exchange of information.
@getnbusy2nite We don't really need money. What we need is currency and many commodities can be used as currency although gold has proven particularly useful in this regard. The free market can determine what is used as currency and how much of it there is. If the supply of gold relative to productive output drops, for example, it will become more profitable to mine it thus increasing supply. I recognize the problem of multiple currencies however so the government could demand taxes in gold...
@studentofsmith You then have the same system that's harder to manage. Yes the gold supply acts like currency, but then everything is dependent on gold instead of paper, but infusions or reductions of gold to keep pace with economic growth are too hard to manage. Gold is heavy to transport and hard to mine.
Research showed that countries who abandoned the Gold Standard early also recovered from the Great Depression faster. Also see Bank Charter Act of 1844 (or I can paraphrase)
@getnbusy2nite I will look into the Bank Charter Act but I would like to point out that the value of gold is remarkably stable. This suggests that the quantity of gold can keep pace with economic growth to create a stable currency. If we could create a paper currency with the same stability it would be more efficient but then we come back to the problem of central planning deciding the quantity of money which never *quite* gets it right.
@studentofsmith It is not remarkably stable...there was a recession in 1857 in the States and an influx of gold stemming from the gold rush of the 1840's was a contributing factor. In a recession of 1825 (which easy credit and speculation was a contributing factor to), only an infusion of gold from the Bank of France saved the Bank of England from total collapse. We had periods where the growth of gold could not keep up with output causing deflation and increased debt/asset ratios.
@getnbusy2nite Interesting. It's hard to deny that the one thing we need most from any form of currency is stability. But if gold were not responsive enough wouldn't people stop using it as currency and use some other, more responsive (and therefore stable) commodity? Of course then we're back to the multiple currency problem when we let the free market determine what to use as currency as well as quantity. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.
@studentofsmith Oh yeah we can agree there, a stable and safe currency is important to economic well being, and government must work to engender confidence in sovereign currency (how it can do that is of course a matter of debate). I am also more than happy to provide you with citation on my claims for further reading.
Gold will always maintain strong intrinsic and traditional value, it's useful as a hedge as well but it's another speculative commodity now. Something of interest>>>
@studentofsmith >>> in the early 20th century, banks had to keep deposits of gold in their vaults and issue debt/deposits with gold convertibility. If say the English central bank needed a gold infusion, they would ring a foreign central bank (say France) and purchase some. The gold was never transported...the French bank would go to their vaults and place a little English Flag on a pile of gold to denote ownership...just an interesting fact and I'd be happy to give you citation.
@getnbusy2nite thus creating a preference for that particular form of currency. I don't feel that Mr. Woods is particularly right-wing I just thought he made a good argument. I certainly don't feel that the central bank is "out to get us" I'm sure they have good intentions but even the best experts working with best information cannot outperform the market. This is a problem common to central economic planning.
@studentofsmith Mr. Woods won a libertarian award and hosted seminars at Auburn University which is a conservative school...
Ideology without substance is ignorance, this is true even of Keynesian practitioners. Austrians claim recessions have gotten worse with increased central bank activity, but data shows that recessions are shorter, farther apart in occurrence, and possibly have lower economic loss than before the Great Depression...shouldn't that warrant your interest and examination?
@getnbusy2nite While an argument should stand or fall on its own merits it can sometimes be helpful to know where someone is coming from so in full disclosure I'll admit my own libertarian leanings.
The notion that recessions have gotten worse does sound like fear mongering. I'll wager Milton Friedmans influence has something to do with the improvement in Fed policy but isn't it ironic that good policy is exactly what the market would do if left to its own devices?
@studentofsmith Well thank you for that. I will also admit I lean a little to the left, but I try my best to not have a bias and always try to hear both sides.
I'm not sure some fully appreciate the losses of market liquidation of "bad assets." Might be better to restructure these assets to be more productive if possible. GM turns a profit, is gaining market share, creates better products. Also examine the Swedish Banking Rescue
We can discuss areas that markets are hypothesized to fail
"An associated prize, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, was instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968 and first awarded in 1969."
This has been flagged as spam show
Economists are the cleverest guys in the room..they never see anything coming, and never really know why anything happened.
If economists were scientists we'd still be disembowlling chickens and goats as part of our strategic defence review and sacrificing children to keep the Harvest Gods happy.....
Talentz92 2 months ago
I emailed this to my economics professor. He was not amused.
edlitz36 3 months ago 2
HAHAHAAAAAAAA! Economics! Who needs that?
lazylank 4 months ago
lol, its funny, any maybe its true. its a grey area, i ll give you that, but IMO the most revolutionary idea in the history of humanity is .... not the idea of using tools ... not the idea of using fire ... not the idea of using the wheel ... but the idea of money... and with the birth of money came the birth of advanced civilization and economics. its just that adam smith formalized it, streamlined it. without economics ... none of the advancements in science would be possible.
mintoo2cool 4 months ago
@isuredolovemusic Probably because there isn't a Nobel Prize in Mathematics, genius.
jimbopumbapigsticks 5 months ago
IMO economics is the science of human behaviour and is more complex than anything else.
G0ttaBeFresh 5 months ago
@G0ttaBeFresh are you too retarded :D for example the scientist who study the human brain work in a field that is almost to infinity complex ..have you even seen lectures about such hard fields..claiming this bullshit about economics get lost :D economics is for children
thelion2430 1 week ago
@thelion2430 You mean neurology? The study of how people produce and distribute resources is economics. I guess it could be a sub category of social science but science simply means knowledge. Garbology for example is the science of waste management. Just because one thing is more complex than another doesn't mean it's not science.
G0ttaBeFresh 1 week ago
@G0ttaBeFresh "Just because one thing is more complex than another doesn't mean it's not science."and i agree but the claim was that economics is the most complex of all and this is nonsense.And economics is a part of social science.i would say real science is waht goes under Natural Science.Economics deals with a made up system ..Look what other fields go under Social science " History " , "Law " this are not science...the same way is economics not real science
thelion2430 1 week ago
Economics definitely has a more artsy subjective feel, but still has a decent amount of math and "solid science"
there is no Nobel prize for math, but a fields medal.
IslamicGoldenAge 5 months ago
i was having an argument with my girlfriend about economics, and that very same day i found this video, haha. win!
IALON 5 months ago
What is more, the Modern Money Mechanics made the banks all over the world to behave as complete and rounded idiots, delaying ordinary business transactions and money transfers with months and at the same time granting loans to people who do not qualify to receive any of the kind ... and who are in default of the previous two ones.
MMMs built a five-story parasitic 'financial system', which is not doing anything else besides unfair re-distribution of the economic wealth by means of 'dark pools'.
U1T001 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RE: 'Economics is the reason all of you guys have a job.'
.. in the past. The idea of Modern Money Mechanics is to wipe out all those jobs. The MMMs is the greatest evil ever existed on the earth. After robbing the middle class all over the world the top designers of MMMs are now planning how to rob the next class. All this Mumbo Jumbo about 2012, how the Coronary Mass Ejection of the Sun will wipe out the satellites of the earth is an approach for the development of Neo-Modern Money Mechanics.
U1T001 7 months ago
Economics is the reason all of you guys have a job.
15922 7 months ago
@15922 Also is the same reason a number of other do not have a job.
mundotaku 6 months ago
Economic winners also tend to be huge dicks. Seriously, I remember one of them saying that the poor should have the biggest tax burden so they would have an incentive to work harder. I dont think he understands what "incentive" means.
Piledriver86 7 months ago
7 people study Economics. The rest are true engineers. CHEM FTW
Hysheon 8 months ago
Ordoliberal free market economics is the best.
perfacetus 8 months ago
Austrian economics owns
LibertarianChristian 9 months ago
There is a clear distinction between hard and soft sciences. Physics, chemistry, biology (and to a certain extend psychology, as far as it is based on biological research) are the so called hard sciences. Soft sciences are basically the social sciences: Sociology, economics, psychology, political science etc. This group of disciples use the scientific method, however, due to the nature of the subjects researched, they cannot produce hard and reliable scientific laws to the extend physics can.
a199215 10 months ago
@a199215
Economics is scientific in the sense that it uses the scientific method, its theories can be refuted, and they can also predict, to a certain extend only, the trend that the economy will take according to already known data or specific policies that are pursued. To compare it however with any hard science its utter nonsense - it is simply too difficult for economics to reach that level of scientific prediction and reliability.
a199215 10 months ago
There shouldn't be a Nobel price in economics, because, as Hayek, himself a Nobel price winner, noted, Nobel price winners in economics gain an influence in political issues through the prestige of the price, which no other winner is able to receive. This can be proven dangerous and further infiltrates politics into the Nobel price process.
a199215 10 months ago
Technically, medicine isn't a science either.
jimbopumbapigsticks 10 months ago
He's wrong, there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics
luffis1985 10 months ago
@luffis1985 Many Mathematicians have won nobel prizes in Economics.
PleomaxDVDRW 9 months ago 11
@PleomaxDVDRW very correct. Milton Friedman majored in Math. Not really a mathematician but you get the idea.
adulby 9 months ago
@PleomaxDVDRW Yes, but there is still no Nobel Prize in Economics.
luffis1985 9 months ago
@PleomaxDVDRW That's because in upper level...economics using more Math than any Physics, Engineering, Chemistry, Finance etc...the basic things like multivariable Calculus, linear algebra or differential equations aren't even worth mentioning..its pretty much applied Mathematics.
A3r03c0n5 6 months ago 5
Comment removed
williams148 6 months ago
Comment removed
williams148 6 months ago
@A3r03c0n5 What do you think engineering and physics majors do? Both are applied science using mathematics from day one in each majors. Going through that myself, I can say the math never ends.
boostingcav 5 months ago
@A3r03c0n5 You know its funny that Pleaomaxdvdrw says econmics uses more math than any physics. SO tell me than why my physics requires Calculus 1 and people who can barely pass algebra are in my economics elective. Engineering for the win ^.^
nightstar1219 3 months ago
@A3r03c0n5 wtf are you talking about :D " That's because in upper level...economics using more Math than any Physics, Engineering, Chemistry"...are you stupid ?? pls people dont make ignorant claims ...economics using more Math than any Physics, Engineering, Chemistry omg you even know what you are claiming here :D you even know what is done in Physics and Engineering...in case you want claim something back..pls show evidence for your claim or dont even start to respond :D
thelion2430 1 week ago
@PleomaxDVDRW ... only that there is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in Economics, there is only the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".
gerddie99 3 weeks ago
John Nash didn't go schizophrenic just to make an award-winning movie.
CommanderCooper 10 months ago
Saying economics isn't a science is like saying psychology isn't a science. They aren't natural/hard sciences, but they are social/soft sciences. Much, if not all, of their theories can not be proven in an experimental setting. Prominent economic thought immediately affects the life of every person living in advanced nations and the subject's importance should not be marginalized.
redarrowhead2 11 months ago
I am an engineering major, but love economics
Economics - The dark science
H1TMANactual 1 year ago
i like this one! :3 haha!! :D
luckygirlo2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Make an effort Naughty bride in your area mworld5.info
leeyafranki 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat
Maybe you should read this 'between the lines'. Here 'Dear Sir' means that it doesn't matter how spontaneous and non-spontaneous the 'order of the market' is, and how free and non-free is the choice, the system is foredoomed to fail onto the moment of its design and development (as Modern Money Mechanics), because it has a mathematical model, but unfortunately nobody has taken any efforts to study it in advance.
BTW the sentences start with capital letter and end with full stop.
U1T001 1 year ago
BAHAHA
Socialism = Creationism
Keynesian = Intelligent design
Austrian economics = Evolution
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat
What? Socialism is really that bad ...
ChaosDynamics 1 year ago
@ChaosDynamics yes. there is a lot of rubbish that appeals to emotion rather than reason in terms of politics. socialism is one- it appeals to emotion, largely.
'des Kapital' by marx is actually a good book, but there are very deep fallacies involved with his take on economics- he treats as hard science.
i can recommend two books 'the law' by Bastiat. and 'economics in one lesson' by Hazlitt. and you will see how Austrian economics, for one, is pretty much like atheism is the 1800s
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat Amazon those two books and read their reviews if you need to be sure of their quality. you will absolutely not regret reading them.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat
I understand your point but with regards to socialism it does work in some cases. I wouldn't go so far as to say everything socialist works, that would be a dogmatic assumption :P and quite contrary to fact. Also to assume that capitalism is the only economic system that can work isn't 100% correct either. I'll have to look into Austrian economics a little more, admittedly I'm not that proficient in economics.
ChaosDynamics 1 year ago
@ChaosDynamics well, it's good to see you are open minded no matter what you end up beleiving.
if i may guide to towards two videos:
watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo
watch?v=EgMclXX5msc
Economics is the only place of study where you do actually find Orwellian doubletalk.
Friedman is also a good source of videos here on youtube
oh and this video is a gem, it describes the banking history dw, it's not a conspiratorial one
watch?v=iYZM58dulPE
Watch them all and you will have a good headstart. good luck
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@TheAttackRat Though Austrian Economics is interesting and has a lot to say of the nature of mankind, there is no empirical evidence that proves it's superiority over Keynesian/Classical economics. Much like all grand economic theories it's had some parts vindicated and some parts "disproven". The idea that the price of a good is all the information needed took a hit in the last financial crisis.
luffis1985 9 months ago
@luffis1985
There are several boks out there comparing different economics systems (I'll have a look at the books/links you recommended TheAttackRat). Three I found informative are:
to compare Austrian Economics and Classical and Keynesian Economics:
The Austrian School by Soto
to compare Classical and Keynesian Economics:
How Markets Fail by John Cassidy
to compare (mainly) Keynesian/Classical Economics and Socialism:
The Economics of the Good Society by Joseph S. Berliner
luffis1985 9 months ago
@luffis1985 Oh and lastly an interesting tidbit:
Milton Friedman's views on economics is very much contrary to the central ideas of Austrian Economics (i.e. the ideas of Mises and Hayek).
luffis1985 9 months ago
@luffis1985 Explain yourself. Why or how did it take a hit in the last financial crisis?
Chhaylin 7 months ago
@gergenheimer
Dear Sir,
Putting the economy to drive along infinite geometric series of 9 (fractional banking system), power series of the compound interest (attached to time) and financial gambling of any kind at the stock exchanges could not be free market, free choice, and free trade from any point of view.
What about the 'free trading' of the High Frequency Trading systems run on mathematical algorithms & relying on advantage of msec-where is the choice and where is the 'free market', if any
U1T001 1 year ago
@U1T001 oh god how i hate people who address others on youtube with 'dear sir'
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
Call it the dismal non-science.
PrepareForChaos 1 year ago
Dilbert clips have such intelligent comments. I'm somewhat awestruck... Scott Adams was on to something.
At the same time, I can see why this show was canceled, clearly the mainstream audience was overwhelmed.
Archedgar 1 year ago
@Archedgar
Scott was probably mocking natural scientists low views on economics, judging by some of his blog material he seem much more like an uncritical fundamentalist of economic orthodoxy. But this video still speaks the truth even if it's unintentionally so.
SwedxSimon02 1 year ago
what a bunch of bull
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
damn I love this clip and its comments !
DOWSOE 1 year ago
Economics has been a topic of debate since the Ancient Greeks and is still an important field that has gone through mathematical, statistical and analytical inference. Now I may be biased because I'm getting my Masters in Economics, but though economics is not a traditional "hard" science, it's studies impact many people in the same manner as hard sciences. Those who would argue economics "is not a science" need to take this into account and make a more informed, less myopic, decision.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
Physics is the only real science, everything else is just hobbies.
MajBlood 1 year ago
Also, just because an economist studies some policy doesn't mean that their suggestions will actually be adhered to. Many economists get muted by the business and government world and have to resort to less than scrupulous forecasting. It's not that all economists are incapable of proper forecasting or empiric research; it's the fact that the ones who do a piss poor job make the ones who actually do it for the love of the science look less reliable on the whole. A couple bad eggs, so to speak.
deviantfaction1000 1 year ago
To simply reply to the myriad grievances about economics espoused in support of this simple joke from Dilbert - Econometrics is empirical economic work. Econometrics can be used and has been used to legitimately forecast future outcomes.
Also, the sum of economics isn't limited to modern neoclassicalism nor is it confined strictly to Keynesianism. Like any field, focusing on the parts instead of the sum will invariably lead to faulty assumptions about the picture.
deviantfaction1000 1 year ago
"economics is not a science!" that's so true
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
this video is so funny and so true :D
thelion2430 1 year ago
the nobel prize for economics was added only because a bank started funding the prize
bobobano 2 years ago 38
true :3
BlueSundew 2 years ago
Remember Frosh: Upon completion of Engineering Frosh Week, you all receive an honorary business degree!
Spanky00Cheeks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The scientist is just mad because the economics major make more money
solidysnake1 2 years ago
So true. Not only do you make a good pay but you can also make big profit margins on the stock market making you get far more money each year.
dadumbazz 2 years ago
And drives us to depressions... Which no one cared for...
masterLoki 2 years ago
I also want to say that economics is not entirely about money, it's about civilized human interaction. Is it possible to have human civilized human interaction without some kind of economy? No, I don't think so. Economists study this phenomenon. I also don't see where people are coming from blaming public policy on economists
ScavHC 2 years ago
*Cough* Keynesian *Cough*
Quit your bitching, yes econ is hard in the upper levels, but it is something that cannot be tested very well in a large scale. Economics is a social science unlike physics and chemistry, no amount of math is going to change that, so deal with it.
There are very good reasons to blame central banking and public policy economists who are often no more than faulty justifications for government intervention and expansion. I'm talking macro though, micro econ is awesome.
Shadyhunter04 2 years ago
so you're saying using maths and creating a whole bunch of unrealistic assumptions creating a fantasy world "Planet Economics for Nerds", we can get closer to understanding how resources should be allocated? knowing what you have just derived and proved in 10 pages will no way work in the real world?
Drf7at 1 year ago
A lot of these comments are very uneducated remarks about the nature of economics. First of all, economics is definitely a science - in the full sense of the term. There is a distinction between positive economics and normative economics - positive economics is based on empirical evidence.
ScavHC 2 years ago
Just because empirically-derived data is taken a crunched through a bunch of equations does not mean what you get out the other side is scientifically valid. To be valid, a scientific theory must be A) testable; it must posit things that can be substantiated or refuted with contrary evidence and B) it must be able to make predictions about future outcomes based on the theoretical models that have been established. Mainstream macroeconomics fails both of these tests.
gergenheimer 2 years ago 27
I can see what you're saying but there are some limitations to your reasoning. A) It would be impossible to "test" on a society economic theories, but we can analyze the effects of economic policy. B) Some economic claims can be tested to produce predictions. For example, the great depression is thought to be the result of a contraction in money supply. We did the opposite in this recession and had a much better outcome, and can assume trying this again would work.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
it's too soon to say that the results of the massive monetary expansion have been better, because we haven't come out the other side yet. Unemployment appears to be lower at 10% than the early years of the GD, but some of this "employment" is illusory - it was stimulated by the monetary expansion and isn't sustainable without this artificial stimulus. Also, much of the money is sitting in the banks and when they start lending again, we will see huge price inflation, possibly hyper-inflation.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
Hyperinflation is unlikely considering that the recovery is expected to be steady and the Fed will increase interest rates and reserve requirements to check inflation as spending and employment go up. I understand it's a tough idea to sell but considering nearly identical circumstances between the GD and this recession the Fed would have been foolish not to act differently. True much of the demand is supported through public spending but once inventories sell firms will have to hire again.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
Your assumption is that contraction of the money supply and reduced government spending is what exacerbated the GD. Contraction of the money supply simply reflected peoples' desire to defer consumption to a later date - which sends important signals to the economy, it isn't simply "lack of spending / demand". As for reduced govt. spending, Herbert Hoover (despite popular myth) engaged in huge deficit and stimulus spending as well as wage and price controls - to no avail.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
Didn't mention government spending, though a contraction of the money supply did contribute (GD was not the cause of a single event) when a run on banks rendered many bankrupt. Also consumers don't control the money supply, they are more the catalyst that impacts the velocity of money so money supply can go up/down but it's up to consumers if they wish to spend. Hoover's efforts though did not have a huge impact as did the increased production for WWII which government funded.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
Demand that is supported by "public spending" doesn't reflect real factors in the economy - in fact it is more likely to prop-up things the market would've said "no" to. For example, recent interest rate policy and tax credits have induced the housing industry to build again. What possible benefit is it to society to keep building homes when we already overbuilt by several million homes that nobody wants or can afford? That isn't productive, it's a waste of resources.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
Unfortunately there are wastes that must be addressed with an increase in government spending, though the overall impact is positive. In a case like this, as in GD, we have an excess in supply. If government creates more demand, that will bring down inventories and firms will hire more people to produce goods. In turn those that were once unemployed will earn income and begin to spend. In a case like the 70's stagflation there was too much demand, so reduce demand/increase supply.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
In the case of the housing market government creates the illusion of more "demand" where none exists by inducing builders to build houses again. You speak of people being hired once inventories are reduced, but in the case housing, we already have several million houses that will never be bought. Please explain the non-depression of 1920-21, which was initially a sharper contraction than 1929, but was over in 18 months despite govt. budget cuts, no stimulus and no monetary expansion.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
You're committing a "fallacy of composition" between housing and government spending and should consider overall effect. Though no fiscal policy, an active monetary policy through lower interest rates helped exit 1920-21 recession by promoting increased monetary flows through consumer/producer borrowing. I'm not stating that spending will cure all recessions but it's a "tool" to use that can be beneficial if used properly. Sometimes you use it and sometimes you do something else.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
the current housing market and government spending are closely connected - perhaps you've heard of the homebuyer tax credit - a tax credit to buy a home is de facto government spending, no different than if the government said, "we'll give you $8,000 cash if you promise to buy a home". As for interest rate policy helping to exit the 1920-21 downturn, it would be an interesting theory if it weren't impossible - the Fed didn't begin open market operations until 1922.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
This comes back to your first argument that economics is not a science. I think our argument (which by the way I thank you for your inputs and time) proves otherwise. We debate various models and methods for testing certain outcomes which can be true or false based upon our conclusions. How is this different from any other physical science? Just because models are complex doesn't mean it can't be a science. I mean you can apply thermodynamics to economics, look up Paul Samuelson.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
To add to the 1920-21 Question, it was also the cause of a transition from a wartime to peacetime economy. Demobilized soldiers led a surge in labor force which lowered wages and prices quickly (no min-wage rate at time). Under deflationary pressures people assume continual price decline and don't spend, such was the fear in beginning of present recession. Prices can only fall so much until people buy again, and lower interest rates can stifle deflation and increase demand for labor and goods
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
I meant you're argument that "some waste in the housing market means the entire stimulus is a waste." The tax-credit was to stabilize the housing market by increasing demand to stifle housing deflation and only went to first time buyers who may choose to purchase new or existing homes.
I checked the data, If you look at the discount rate for the fed (st. louis data) it jumps from 4.75 to 6.00 , then decreased during the 1920-22 period. Check out FRED under historical discount rates.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@gergenheimer
Several hypotheses in mainstream (and austrian) economics actually *are* refuted as of (among other things) the current crisis, neatly summarized in John Quiggins ''Refuted economic doctrines'' series of blog entries. As of now though, the field is just afriad to adpat since it'd have to admit to so many errors, and it would be too much work trying to replace them with scientifically sound theories.
SwedxSimon02 1 year ago
Quiggin's refutation of Austrian theory totally misses the mark. Go to Mises-dot-org and look up daily article 3466. That article deftly shows how Quiggin's assessment of ABCT is off-base, as Quiggin misconstrues several major points of Austrian theory. This article should help you understand why Austrian theory has not been refuted by current events. I agree that the field of economics will be unwilling to change and won't abandon their penchant for pseudo-scientific number crunching.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Economics certainly should be made empirically sound however.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
Due to the subjectivity of human wants and needs, the only way economics can be made empirically sound is for its practitioners to abandon their meaningless mathematical modeling and rethink their mechanistic view of "the economy". Their belief that we can treat the economy like some kind of machine and tinker with the gears and dials using public policy, (that is, force), and manipulation of money and interest rates (that is, fraud) has been an utter disaster over the past century.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer You mean to get rid of any attempts at mathematical modeling entirely? Even if the models to do not stand up to the relevant sense data, surely one can build other models and then test them. By abandoning mathematics we loose all sense of degree.
Also, reagarding the second half of your comment, are you saying the idea that economy reacts to public policy is false? That the effects of public policy be undesirable is one thing, but to say it has zero effects is demonstrably false.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
The need for mathematical modeling and the testing of those models rests on the assumption that we can/should "manage" the economy, rather than trusting the spontaneous order of markets and the collective free choices of human beings. I reject this assumption. My points about public policy are that it is morally tainted because it relies on coercion (violence), plus it rarely achieves the intended results, certainly not without unintended (sometimes worse) side effects.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Does it now? In the same way that we model the movement of astrological bodies because we wish to "manage" them? Simply seeking to understand and gain insight has nothing to do with? Or the idea that we should investigate because we wish to verify that markets indeed have the consequences we desire?
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
Recent history shows full-well that politicians salivate at the prospect of using the "insights" of economic "science" to sell their power-grabs and social engineering schemes, and egocentric, self-interested academic economists are more than willing to play along. Tell me, what insights have we gained from the century of mathematical empiricism in economics? That war and destruction are GOOD for prosperity? That it makes sense to pay farmers not to grow crops or pay workers not to work?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer While war and destruction can increase economic activity, it is quite a stretch to say it increased overall human welfare (if that is what you mean by prosperity). Although it does increase the the welfare of the weapon factory owners.
On the other point however, the is an argument for paying farmers even during seasons where they are not productive in order to deter petty crime. But of course such would not be an optimal scenario for the nation wishing to maximize output.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
@Scientisticsoviet It increases the GPD per capida by removing a lot of the people thus making a artificial growth ^^
dadumbazz 1 year ago
@dadumbazz But if you have studied beyond econ 101 you know that GDP per capita is only a good measure of the standard of living if ceteris paribus. But of course in the real world that condition is simply not held.
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
@Scientisticsoviet If you'd be smart you would know it's a joke.
dadumbazz 1 year ago
@dadumbazz My bad, I'm not good with sarcasm, especially when I read text quickly :)
Scientisticsoviet 1 year ago
@Scientisticsoviet It's alright. ^^
dadumbazz 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Austrian economics has been correctly predicting things for decades.
frashure 1 year ago 3
@frashure so have the Mayans, Scientology, and monkeys dancing on typewriters. If you ignore the bad predictions everybody is a genius.
aSheeple 9 months ago
@frashure
And so has Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
But its not a question of predicting events - the question is to deliever a better system.
And there austrian economics is just a bunch of crazy stupid retards - much worse then the socialists.
llothar68 8 months ago
@gergenheimer
No it doesn't fail them you fucking retard.
Ilikemustard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ilikemustard what comment are you responding to? Not that it matters, since you will no doubt make some inane statement worthy of a fifth-grader (or Paul Krugman). If you have any wits about you, you will refrain from embarrassing yourself further, but since you deemed "No it doesn't fail them you fucking retard" a worthy retort I don't hold out much hope for your judgement. Do us all a favor and stay in the shallow end of the IQ pool where you won't drown.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Not quite. The reason a model fails is not all variables are accounted and cannot possibly be. If economics is not a science then neither is meteorology
H1TMANactual 1 year ago
@H1TMANactual incorrect. The distinct difference is that it is theoretically possible for meteorology to make accurate predictions - if it had perfect information available. Economic behavior is wholly different - human beings make economic decisions based on subjective, unmeasurable values. If you buy a bottle of water for $1.00, and I buy an identical $1.00 bottle of water after being lost in the desert, economic "science" says these transactions are the same. Common sense says otherwise.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer nope incorrect on both. it is not even theoretically possible for meteorology to make accurate predictions. for starters, there are no models that take into account EVERY variable. and the only thing economic models can't predict is human behavior i.e consumers
and i didn't understand your water analogy, plz reword them
H1TMANactual 1 year ago
@H1TMANactual It is THEORETICALLY possible for meteorology to make accurate predictions, if it had perfect info (Note, I didn't say it was ACTUALLY possible to have perfect info or perfect models.) By contrast, the fact that economic models can't measure or account for human subjective behavior is precisely why they aren't scientifically valid - after all, economics is supposed to explain/predict a certain type of human human behavior, and it fails because subjective values can't be measured.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@H1TMANactual The water example was to illustrate the subjectivity and contextual nature of human economic behavior. If you spend $1.00 for a bottle of water to have with your lunch, and I spend a dollar for an identical bottle of water after dying of thirst in the desert for several days, economic "science" tells us the "value" of both bottles of water is the same - $1.00. Obviously, the water has much more value to me, even though I paid the same nominal price. Macro-economics ignores this.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer I just answered that. For it to be theoretically accurate for starters models have to account for all variables that effect the weather, and there are no models that does that. So even if all info was available, there are no models to plug it into
yes the value is the same. because the value of a product is based on market appraisal not your personal feelings. for example the dollar in your wallet ceases to have value if the dollar collapsed and it becomes a piece of paper
H1TMANactual 1 year ago
@H1TMANactual Wrong. Value is a subjective, not objective, concept. Now imagine that the store clerk can see that I'm desperate for water and he decides to charge me $10 for the bottle of water. I don't think twice about it and I pay the $10. By your way of thinking, I should value the water 10 times as much because I paid 10 times the price. This is, of course, absurd. I value the water because it brings me back to health, not because of how much I paid for it.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Once again I already answered that. Value is objective. It's simply based on supply and demand and the store clerk can see that the demand has just gone up when you need the water to live.
H1TMANactual 1 year ago
@H1TMANactual You are claiming that the "objective" value of a good is obtained through subjective means. This is a contradiction in terms. (Objective - adjective: existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject) If value were objective it would be the same regardless of context or special circumstances. My water example disproves the concept of objective value for even the simplest transactions.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer I know the definition of objective
Value is always objective though it may be subjective to you. It's dependent on the subjective evaluation by the majority i.e demand but then an objective value is established. Like in your water example, though it was priceless for you, you still put a $10 price on it
H1TMANactual 1 year ago
@H1TMANactual Let's try a different thought experiment. I'm hungry for a snack. I go to the store. They don't have my favorite candy, Snickers, so I buy my second favorite, Mars, for $1.00. On the way home, I stop to visit a friend. He has a Snickers, which he bought for $1.00, but his favorite candy is Mars. Your theory of "objective" value is unable to explain why we would want to exchange candy, but the answer is obvious. Even though the prices paid were the same, the values are different.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer wat?
vinipo 10 months ago
@vinipo what don't you understand?
gergenheimer 10 months ago
@gergenheimer almost everything...sry, i'm so dumb =(
vinipo 6 months ago
the definition of a Science - (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1] Certainly Economics falls within this definition. It is not a natural science but a social science.
nkfallout 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
economics is a science. economics is the study of natural social phenomenon related to the transfer and flow of money. recently this study has evolved to be heavily dependent on mathematics, similar to other sciences. you can't tell me that taking a natural phenomenon and developing a complex mathematical function to predict future social behavior is not a science.
nkfallout 2 years ago
Comment removed
grahamc017 2 years ago
what is the point in your rant?
Darusdei 2 years ago
If economics is a science, economics as a science has failed the world on an epic scale. Chemistry, physics, math, and medicine have not failed the world as a whole in the last 100 years. Then again, one of the world's most successful economists (Deming) was actually a statistician and engineer. Go figure.
dawenus 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? How exactly has "economics" failed the world? George Bush might've failed the world, but how has economics failed the world? How about chemistry and the Nazi regime? Did chemistry fail the world then? No, that's a ridiculous thing to say
ScavHC 2 years ago
Well you're definition of failed is too broad I think. I mean if you look at nuclear power it has the potential to destroy the world. However power is only harmful if in the hands of negligent people who don't care.
Economics works in much the same way. easy credit, artificially low interest rates for too long a period and lower regulations on financial institutions led to the depression and the causes were ignored by those with power. It's not economics that fails, it's people.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
Economics is based on the assumption that people behave rationally, which has been completely proven false. Imagine if mathematics included in its underlying assumptions a false statement, like "if a, then b. b is true, therefore a is true." Many of the conclusions from complex models will still be true, but some will not and it may not be readily apparant which ones are false. If economics is to be regarded as a science, it has to replace rationality with the way people really behave.
zach88726 2 years ago 2
If people are allowed to live their economic lives as they choose, and they choose the things they prefer over the things they don't, how is that not rational? I agree that economics is not an empirical science, but rationality is not disproved just because you think people make "bad" decisions. Economists try to lump human beings into one-size-fits-all aggregates based on the fallacy that wealth is measured in piles of money, rather than subjective values.
gergenheimer 2 years ago
In economics, rationality is defined as people maximizing their utility based on their preferences. My point is that people do not do this. They satisfice rather than maximize, and therefore do not behave rationally according to the definition used by economics. Economists put no subjective judgement on what people's preferences are, only whether they pursue them or not rationally, which they don't.
zach88726 2 years ago
If value was only based on utility then your denial of the rationality of human behavior would be correct, but utility is not the only measure of value. If someone pays $100 for a Sammy Sosa baseball card, it is because they value it more than the other things they could do with that $100 - by their values they have become more wealthy. It is not the place of you (or economists) to say they behaved irrationally just because you wouldn't have done the same thing.
gergenheimer 2 years ago
I didn't say people always behave irrationally, and said they don't always behave rationally, as economics assumes they do. And I never said purchasing baseball cards is irrational, because if the utility derived from owning the cards is greater than $100, this is a rational choice. However, we see drastic differences between Western nations' organ donation programs when the only difference between them is whether the programs are opt-in or opt-out. If people are rational it should not matter
zach88726 2 years ago
I think where you are making a logical mis-step is in the assumption that economics assumes rational behavior. Mainstream economics makes no such assumption nor do mainstream economists care about rational behavior. Keynesianism, the prevailing economic paradigm says that the only thing that matters is price stability and aggregate spending. It doesn't matter to Keyensians that rational people have decided to save instead of spend, they think that the only criteria is spending - rational or not.
gergenheimer 2 years ago
Take any economics 101 course and within the first week the professor will tell you that in economics, agents are assumed to be rational in order to make the models work. As for Keynsianism vs. classical economics, both make the same basic assumptions, but draw different conclusions. To draw again from the mathematics parallel, these two camps are trying to figure out calculus when they are working with a faulty assumption. The debate exists because the models do not portray reality.
zach88726 2 years ago
I'm not sure what school of economics you mean by "classical" - certainly not the Austrian school, which shares NO basic assumptions with Keynesianism. Mainstream economics may pay lip service to the assumption of rational behavior, but it promptly throws that assumption out the window when it lumps human beings into sanitized, meaningless spending aggregates where subjective value has been tossed-aside, and treats all forms of rational savings and deferred consumption as "animal spirits".
gergenheimer 2 years ago
one simple word you are missing in this assumption is 'self'. It is based on the fact that agents act in rational self interest and they do. You do whatever you want to fulfill your self interest. If you didn't than you would not have the goods and services you surround yourself with and you wouldn't be happy. The assumption is correct that people will act in a rational self interest. Rationality is in the eyes of the beholder.
nkfallout 2 years ago
how is economics not an empirical science?
ScavHC 2 years ago
First, because mainstream economic science fails to have any predictive value - all one has to do is look at the dotcom and housing bubbles to see the failure of "empirical" economic science. Number two, economics fails as an empirical science because in order to parrot the hard sciences it is forced to ignore subjective value. Human beings act to improve their lives based on the things they value. These values cannot be measured only in terms of money and are thus ignored by (most) economists.
gergenheimer 2 years ago
There are predictive values in economics. 1) Raising interest rates lowers lending and vise-versa 2) Appreciation in a nations currency renders exports less attractive to foreign buyers, and the opposite for depreciating currency 3) people tend to save rather than spend at the start of a recession and deflation is a danger so you must halt it. Some economists may ignore non-monetary value but that doesn't mean the whole discipline isn't a science.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
It seems pretty clear to me that the predictive tools of mainstream, "scientific" economics have a dismal record, from failing to explain the downturn of 1920-21, to failing to pull us out of the GD for a decade, predicting a huge depression at the end of WW2 that never came, failing to see the housing bubble, etc. By contrast, the Austrian School has had great predictive success for a century and they would be the first to insist that economics can't be an purely empirical science.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
I'm not fond of Keynesian vs Austrian vs Monetarist vs etc arguments because all schools of economic thought have tools and views that should be considered when appropriate. Using one method to solve multiple problems doesn't work no matter what ideology you subscribe to. If Austrians did predict something, then they must have used scientific methods of observation to show that expansionary monetary booms lead to recessions (which I can see), which adds credence to economics being a science.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
Austrians say they predict a recession whenever there's expansionary monetary policy and an asset bubble (which is great so that should be considered), but they have yet to solve an economic problem. I think it sucks that Austrian views are usually discounted, but to completely bash mainstream economic thought and is myopic. I don't see Austrians predicting ends to recessions or postulating solutions. All economic thought has problems to address, but should never be discounted.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@getnbusy2nite Have you seen Thomas E. Woods speech on the economic crisis & Federal Reserve? [watch?v=CF27CSIofvg] In it he argues that the boom/bust economic cycle is the direct result of the central banks manipulation of the interest rate and that the solution is to allow the "price" of money to be set by supply and demand. Sounds like a solution to an economic problem to me.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith Austrians don't like Central Banks and would like to see them go, which is problematic to their theory since business cycles predate central banking. The price of money, or interest, should be codified by natural supply and demand...great
But now what determines the supply of money? How do we codify money quantity without a central bank or entity? Many banks could print their own or be subject to a gold standard but research the Bank Charter Act of 1844 and that's problematic.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@studentofsmith btw don't give me this ultra right wing rubbish...I want non-biased, non-partisan, left/right material if you would like to cite some work please. I'm not a liberal, a Keynesian, an Austrian, I'm just a guy that loves economics (with a grad degree in it) and I'm just interested in facts please.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@studentofsmith Also he makes a mention of Hayek's Market Coordination problem in Video 3/7. The Central Bank doesn't just arbitrarily lower interest rates, they do so only after a recession or in a desire to make lending easier to spur growth in a downturn. In recessions people naturally save for rainy days and are not consuming, so the fed dropping interest rates is in line with the market at that time.
However, I will say the danger is they may leave it low for too long a period.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@studentofsmith I'm sorry I'm being rude and not giving you a chance to respond...you just caught me on one of my craze learning days. I do enjoy economics and have been purposely looking for intellectual stimulation of late. I'll offer a chance for a comment and thank you for your interest. I hope we can both learn from this exchange of information.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@getnbusy2nite We don't really need money. What we need is currency and many commodities can be used as currency although gold has proven particularly useful in this regard. The free market can determine what is used as currency and how much of it there is. If the supply of gold relative to productive output drops, for example, it will become more profitable to mine it thus increasing supply. I recognize the problem of multiple currencies however so the government could demand taxes in gold...
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith You then have the same system that's harder to manage. Yes the gold supply acts like currency, but then everything is dependent on gold instead of paper, but infusions or reductions of gold to keep pace with economic growth are too hard to manage. Gold is heavy to transport and hard to mine.
Research showed that countries who abandoned the Gold Standard early also recovered from the Great Depression faster. Also see Bank Charter Act of 1844 (or I can paraphrase)
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@getnbusy2nite I will look into the Bank Charter Act but I would like to point out that the value of gold is remarkably stable. This suggests that the quantity of gold can keep pace with economic growth to create a stable currency. If we could create a paper currency with the same stability it would be more efficient but then we come back to the problem of central planning deciding the quantity of money which never *quite* gets it right.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith It is not remarkably stable...there was a recession in 1857 in the States and an influx of gold stemming from the gold rush of the 1840's was a contributing factor. In a recession of 1825 (which easy credit and speculation was a contributing factor to), only an infusion of gold from the Bank of France saved the Bank of England from total collapse. We had periods where the growth of gold could not keep up with output causing deflation and increased debt/asset ratios.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@getnbusy2nite Interesting. It's hard to deny that the one thing we need most from any form of currency is stability. But if gold were not responsive enough wouldn't people stop using it as currency and use some other, more responsive (and therefore stable) commodity? Of course then we're back to the multiple currency problem when we let the free market determine what to use as currency as well as quantity. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith Oh yeah we can agree there, a stable and safe currency is important to economic well being, and government must work to engender confidence in sovereign currency (how it can do that is of course a matter of debate). I am also more than happy to provide you with citation on my claims for further reading.
Gold will always maintain strong intrinsic and traditional value, it's useful as a hedge as well but it's another speculative commodity now. Something of interest>>>
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@studentofsmith >>> in the early 20th century, banks had to keep deposits of gold in their vaults and issue debt/deposits with gold convertibility. If say the English central bank needed a gold infusion, they would ring a foreign central bank (say France) and purchase some. The gold was never transported...the French bank would go to their vaults and place a little English Flag on a pile of gold to denote ownership...just an interesting fact and I'd be happy to give you citation.
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@getnbusy2nite thus creating a preference for that particular form of currency. I don't feel that Mr. Woods is particularly right-wing I just thought he made a good argument. I certainly don't feel that the central bank is "out to get us" I'm sure they have good intentions but even the best experts working with best information cannot outperform the market. This is a problem common to central economic planning.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith Mr. Woods won a libertarian award and hosted seminars at Auburn University which is a conservative school...
Ideology without substance is ignorance, this is true even of Keynesian practitioners. Austrians claim recessions have gotten worse with increased central bank activity, but data shows that recessions are shorter, farther apart in occurrence, and possibly have lower economic loss than before the Great Depression...shouldn't that warrant your interest and examination?
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
@getnbusy2nite While an argument should stand or fall on its own merits it can sometimes be helpful to know where someone is coming from so in full disclosure I'll admit my own libertarian leanings.
The notion that recessions have gotten worse does sound like fear mongering. I'll wager Milton Friedmans influence has something to do with the improvement in Fed policy but isn't it ironic that good policy is exactly what the market would do if left to its own devices?
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith Well thank you for that. I will also admit I lean a little to the left, but I try my best to not have a bias and always try to hear both sides.
I'm not sure some fully appreciate the losses of market liquidation of "bad assets." Might be better to restructure these assets to be more productive if possible. GM turns a profit, is gaining market share, creates better products. Also examine the Swedish Banking Rescue
We can discuss areas that markets are hypothesized to fail
getnbusy2nite 1 year ago
what they failed to show is that the bus passes up the car in front of him and then gets hit by a train
sly4308 2 years ago
ah which episode is this from
AllClassZero 2 years ago
There's no Nobel prizes for mathematics, although some mathematicians have received a prize.
fc007 2 years ago
Just a random fact for those mocking economics...the creator of Dilbert, the one you all are calling a genius, was an econ major.
LethalLewis 2 years ago
Which is why he knows better than anyone about its true nature ;).
Sephlock 2 years ago 4
without economics we wouldn't have anything, because there would be no company. it is easy to critisize when you are complete ignorant fuck.
oddajcieminicka 2 years ago
"complete ignorant fuck"
Hm.... I think I am gonna order a t-shirt with this on it.
Qwertzytamine 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
PadraikKasier 2 years ago
There is even not a Nobel prize in Economics =)
mightymagnus 2 years ago
there is
Hotora86 2 years ago
No, check it up on wikipedia and you will see.
"An associated prize, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, was instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968 and first awarded in 1969."
mightymagnus 2 years ago