You are cleverly dodging the question.
What are your qualified reasons to not label this coming rate hike decision a science?
I'm rather dumb and stupid so please make your reasons dummyproof.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
You are cleverly dodging the question.
What are your qualified reasons to not label this coming rate hike decision a science?
I'm rather dumb and stupid so please make your reasons dummyproof.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I am indeed trying to dodge the question and that's because 1. there are so many reasons I don't know where to start and 2. I've already written them during my last few posts here debating with Vesicles so I don't want to write all of them again. Could you go back and read them in the last few pages? I feel like I'm being asked why a fish doesn't qualify as a vegetable and I just don't know where to start nor do I really want to delve into it again. If you could read only 1, then the fundamental reason I outlined for why economics does not qualify as a science is in post 6906, though the ones I posted before that are relevant as well.
If, after reading them, you still feel that there is compelling reason as to why a basis point hike qualifies as science, please list them and we can continue from there.
Last edited:
I have marked off the denial and resistance parts.
Why don't you explore further?
Change is hard, especially the thinking part. Nice talking to you.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Well, since you admitted to being stupid, that's probably why we're stuck. There's no point explaining science to stupid people, especially those who don't read.
Remembering that simple fact that I'm stupid and dumb keeps me honest and sane throughout my life, LoL. Just coming up for air.
Not that I care about the color as long as a cat catches mouse, here is Robert Shiller's musings on the topic for all its worth. There is no reason to be apologetic for it is what it is.
One won't need economics in a paradise, until that day, like it or not, science or not, everybody is stuck with it. Real life than real science, if you really like to choose.
Robert J. Shiller
Follow @RobertJShiller
Robert J. Shiller, a 2013 Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Yale University and the co-creator of the Case-Shiller Index of US house prices. He is the author of Irrational Exuberance, the third edition of which was published in January 2015, and, most recently, Phishing for P… read more
NOV 6, 2013 29
Is Economics a Science?
NEW HAVEN – I am one of the winners of this year’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which makes me acutely aware of criticism of the prize by those who claim that economics – unlike chemistry, physics, or medicine, for which Nobel Prizes are also awarded – is not a science. Are they right?
One problem with economics is that it is necessarily focused on policy, rather than discovery of fundamentals. Nobody really cares much about economic data except as a guide to policy: economic phenomena do not have the same intrinsic fascination for us as the internal resonances of the atom or the functioning of the vesicles and other organelles of a living cell. We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more like engineering than physics, more practical than spiritual.
There is no Nobel Prize for engineering, though there should be. True, the chemistry prize this year looks a bit like an engineering prize, because it was given to three researchers – Martin Karplus, Michael Levitt, and Arieh Warshel – “for the development of multiscale models of complex chemical systems” that underlie the computer programs that make nuclear magnetic resonance hardware work. But the Nobel Foundation is forced to look at much more such practical, applied material when it considers the economics prize.
The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention. The Nobel Prize is designed to reward those who do not play tricks for attention, and who, in their sincere pursuit of the truth, might otherwise be slighted.
Why is it called a prize in “economic sciences,” rather than just “economics”? The other prizes are not awarded in the “chemical sciences” or the “physical sciences.”
Fields of endeavor that use “science” in their titles tend to be those that get masses of people emotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on public opinion. These fields have “science” in their names to distinguish them from their disreputable cousins.
The term political science first became popular in the late eighteenth century to distinguish it from all the partisan tracts whose purpose was to gain votes and influence rather than pursue the truth. Astronomical science was a common term in the late nineteenth century, to distinguish it from astrology and the study of ancient myths about the constellations. Hypnotic science was also used in the nineteenth century to distinguish the scientific study of hypnotism from witchcraft or religious transcendentalism.
There was a need for such terms back then, because their crackpot counterparts held much greater sway in general discourse. Scientists had to announce themselves as scientists.
In fact, even the term chemical science enjoyed some popularity in the nineteenth century – a time when the field sought to distinguish itself from alchemy and the promotion of quack nostrums. But the need to use that term to distinguish true science from the practice of imposters was already fading by the time the Nobel Prizes were launched in 1901.
Similarly, the terms astronomical science and hypnotic science mostly died out as the twentieth century progressed, perhaps because belief in the occult waned in respectable society. Yes, horoscopes still persist in popular newspapers, but they are there only for the severely scientifically challenged, or for entertainment; the idea that the stars determine our fate has lost all intellectual currency. Hence there is no longer any need for the term “astronomical science.”
Critics of “economic sciences” sometimes refer to the development of a “pseudoscience” of economics, arguing that it uses the trappings of science, like dense mathematics, but only for show. For example, in his 2004 book Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Nicholas Taleb said of economic sciences: “You can disguise charlatanism under the weight of equations, and nobody can catch you since there is no such thing as a controlled experiment.”
But physics is not without such critics, too. In his 2004 book The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Lee Smolin reproached the physics profession for being seduced by beautiful and elegant theories (notably string theory) rather than those that can be tested by experimentation. Similarly, in his 2007 book Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law, Peter Woit accused physicists of much the same sin as mathematical economists are said to commit.
My belief is that economics is somewhat more vulnerable than the physical sciences to models whose validity will never be clear, because the necessity for approximation is much stronger than in the physical sciences, especially given that the models describe people rather than magnetic resonances or fundamental particles. People can just change their minds and behave completely differently. They even have neuroses and identity problems, complex phenomena that the field of behavioral economics is finding relevant to understanding economic outcomes.
But all the mathematics in economics is not, as Taleb suggests, charlatanism. Economics has an important quantitative side, which cannot be escaped. The challenge has been to combine its mathematical insights with the kinds of adjustments that are needed to make its models fit the economy’s irreducibly human element.
The advance of behavioral economics is not fundamentally in conflict with mathematical economics, as some seem to think, though it may well be in conflict with some currently fashionable mathematical economic models. And, while economics presents its own methodological problems, the basic challenges facing researchers are not fundamentally different from those faced by researchers in other fields. As economics develops, it will broaden its repertory of methods and sources of evidence, the science will become stronger, and the charlatans will be exposed.
Not that I care about the color as long as a cat catches mouse, here is Robert Shiller's musings on the topic for all its worth. There is no reason to be apologetic for it is what it is.
One won't need economics in a paradise, until that day, like it or not, science or not, everybody is stuck with it. Real life than real science, if you really like to choose.
Robert J. Shiller
Follow @RobertJShiller
Robert J. Shiller, a 2013 Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at Yale University and the co-creator of the Case-Shiller Index of US house prices. He is the author of Irrational Exuberance, the third edition of which was published in January 2015, and, most recently, Phishing for P… read more
NOV 6, 2013 29
Is Economics a Science?
NEW HAVEN – I am one of the winners of this year’s Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which makes me acutely aware of criticism of the prize by those who claim that economics – unlike chemistry, physics, or medicine, for which Nobel Prizes are also awarded – is not a science. Are they right?
One problem with economics is that it is necessarily focused on policy, rather than discovery of fundamentals. Nobody really cares much about economic data except as a guide to policy: economic phenomena do not have the same intrinsic fascination for us as the internal resonances of the atom or the functioning of the vesicles and other organelles of a living cell. We judge economics by what it can produce. As such, economics is rather more like engineering than physics, more practical than spiritual.
There is no Nobel Prize for engineering, though there should be. True, the chemistry prize this year looks a bit like an engineering prize, because it was given to three researchers – Martin Karplus, Michael Levitt, and Arieh Warshel – “for the development of multiscale models of complex chemical systems” that underlie the computer programs that make nuclear magnetic resonance hardware work. But the Nobel Foundation is forced to look at much more such practical, applied material when it considers the economics prize.
The problem is that once we focus on economic policy, much that is not science comes into play. Politics becomes involved, and political posturing is amply rewarded by public attention. The Nobel Prize is designed to reward those who do not play tricks for attention, and who, in their sincere pursuit of the truth, might otherwise be slighted.
Why is it called a prize in “economic sciences,” rather than just “economics”? The other prizes are not awarded in the “chemical sciences” or the “physical sciences.”
Fields of endeavor that use “science” in their titles tend to be those that get masses of people emotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on public opinion. These fields have “science” in their names to distinguish them from their disreputable cousins.
The term political science first became popular in the late eighteenth century to distinguish it from all the partisan tracts whose purpose was to gain votes and influence rather than pursue the truth. Astronomical science was a common term in the late nineteenth century, to distinguish it from astrology and the study of ancient myths about the constellations. Hypnotic science was also used in the nineteenth century to distinguish the scientific study of hypnotism from witchcraft or religious transcendentalism.
There was a need for such terms back then, because their crackpot counterparts held much greater sway in general discourse. Scientists had to announce themselves as scientists.
In fact, even the term chemical science enjoyed some popularity in the nineteenth century – a time when the field sought to distinguish itself from alchemy and the promotion of quack nostrums. But the need to use that term to distinguish true science from the practice of imposters was already fading by the time the Nobel Prizes were launched in 1901.
Similarly, the terms astronomical science and hypnotic science mostly died out as the twentieth century progressed, perhaps because belief in the occult waned in respectable society. Yes, horoscopes still persist in popular newspapers, but they are there only for the severely scientifically challenged, or for entertainment; the idea that the stars determine our fate has lost all intellectual currency. Hence there is no longer any need for the term “astronomical science.”
Critics of “economic sciences” sometimes refer to the development of a “pseudoscience” of economics, arguing that it uses the trappings of science, like dense mathematics, but only for show. For example, in his 2004 book Fooled by Randomness, Nassim Nicholas Taleb said of economic sciences: “You can disguise charlatanism under the weight of equations, and nobody can catch you since there is no such thing as a controlled experiment.”
But physics is not without such critics, too. In his 2004 book The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Lee Smolin reproached the physics profession for being seduced by beautiful and elegant theories (notably string theory) rather than those that can be tested by experimentation. Similarly, in his 2007 book Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law, Peter Woit accused physicists of much the same sin as mathematical economists are said to commit.
My belief is that economics is somewhat more vulnerable than the physical sciences to models whose validity will never be clear, because the necessity for approximation is much stronger than in the physical sciences, especially given that the models describe people rather than magnetic resonances or fundamental particles. People can just change their minds and behave completely differently. They even have neuroses and identity problems, complex phenomena that the field of behavioral economics is finding relevant to understanding economic outcomes.
But all the mathematics in economics is not, as Taleb suggests, charlatanism. Economics has an important quantitative side, which cannot be escaped. The challenge has been to combine its mathematical insights with the kinds of adjustments that are needed to make its models fit the economy’s irreducibly human element.
The advance of behavioral economics is not fundamentally in conflict with mathematical economics, as some seem to think, though it may well be in conflict with some currently fashionable mathematical economic models. And, while economics presents its own methodological problems, the basic challenges facing researchers are not fundamentally different from those faced by researchers in other fields. As economics develops, it will broaden its repertory of methods and sources of evidence, the science will become stronger, and the charlatans will be exposed.
Equation
Lieutenant General
It's called history repeating itself or human fallacy reign supreme.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The good news is the Trump administration appears to be moderating its tone on the yuan and trade with China. However, I want Congress to bring the Blackstone Group LP in front of its oversight committee and probe Schwarzman's potential conflict of interests. Probably nothing there, but it doesn't hurt to address even appearance of it.
I believe it's pretty safe to assume everybody is chill now and have cooled their jets off.
I do appreciate it that someone has given me an opportunity to learn how science works. Economics is definitely not even passing the smell test, it seems.
I write this because it is part of the thread and it would be much better if we deal with it as close to reality as possible so that people can make informed judgement, as least leading to it, instead of generalization and stereotypes based on rather nebulous ideas without any specific details to back those up why you could say what you said, a failure of deductive reasoning on which the very foundation of those nebulous claims are based on.
Those issues have been gaining a lot of attention within the field itself, as much as, if not more than those from the outside looking in. Whether it is diverse opinions or dysfunctional family is up to each one to decide.
As a doctor would try to diagnose to cure, save a patient and keep him well based on test results, if I may have the permission to call it a science or scientific pursuit of some sorts based on abductive reasoning, economics do the same to general well beings and public goods of all.
So here are a few thoughtful articles by no less than economists themselves. Hope you would love to hate them.
I do appreciate it that someone has given me an opportunity to learn how science works. Economics is definitely not even passing the smell test, it seems.
I write this because it is part of the thread and it would be much better if we deal with it as close to reality as possible so that people can make informed judgement, as least leading to it, instead of generalization and stereotypes based on rather nebulous ideas without any specific details to back those up why you could say what you said, a failure of deductive reasoning on which the very foundation of those nebulous claims are based on.
Those issues have been gaining a lot of attention within the field itself, as much as, if not more than those from the outside looking in. Whether it is diverse opinions or dysfunctional family is up to each one to decide.
As a doctor would try to diagnose to cure, save a patient and keep him well based on test results, if I may have the permission to call it a science or scientific pursuit of some sorts based on abductive reasoning, economics do the same to general well beings and public goods of all.
So here are a few thoughtful articles by no less than economists themselves. Hope you would love to hate them.
solarz
Brigadier
Here's an article where a major bank is trying to make a prediction. Let's see in two years whether this prediction came true.
Desperate homebuyers, take a two-year breather. Housing speculators, take warning.
Toronto’s house-price juggernaut is two years away from the sort of peak it reached it 1989, when a housing bubble burst in the city, BMO Economics says.
“At the rate we’re now going with 20-per-cent year-on-year price increases, assuming stable mortgage rates and continued income growth, we’ll be at 1989 valuation levels in about 24 months,” senior economist Robert Kavcic wrote in a note last week.
-Advertisement-
Condo buildings under construction in downtown Toronto. A new study from the Ryerson City Building Institute says there is no housing shortage in Toronto; home construction is above historic norms compared to population growth. (Photo: Getty Images)
Kavcic's note comes shortly after BMO’s chief economist, Douglas Porter, declared it’s time to “stop the pretense” and admit .
Toronto's average house price jumped 27.7 per cent in February from a year earlier, to $859,186. Single-family homes soared to $1.57 million on average, a jump of nearly 30 per cent in a year.
Kavcic provided a chart showing how affordability broke off from its long-run average in early 2016, and is headed into bubble territory.
The 1989 housing market peak led to a seven-year period of house price declines in Toronto, with prices falling 39 per cent from their 1989 peak by 1996.
No housing shortage in Toronto?
The most common explanation given by real estate industry insiders for Toronto’s rising house prices is that there is a shortage of housing supply in the quickly-growing city. That's the argument used by the Ontario Real Estate Association to call for looser density requirements and looser restrictions on urban sprawl.
But a new report from Ryerson University’s City Building Institute, released Monday, says the rate of home construction in the Toronto area is “well above historical norms.”
The rate of construction of single-family homes, however, is slightly below its long-term average, said the report from Simon Fraser University assistant professor Josh Gordon.
Loosening building restrictions would do little to improve affordability in the short term, the study argued. House prices are being driven upwards not by a real shortage but by “powerful expectational dynamics” — the belief that prices will continue rising, causing people to rush buying homes.
The number of listings coming on the market is at similar levels as always, but since people are buying more quickly, there are fewer active listings at any given time. For instance, in Greater Toronto there were some 6,300 active MLS listings as of Monday morning, compared to 14,300 in the Montreal area, according to Realtor.ca. That creates the illusion of a shortage.
Cooling the market should be about "shifting" people's expectations, the paper argued.
“As housing bubbles are allowed to expand, many are hurt or drawn into unsustainable financial situations. This is particularly the case for young Torontonians,” Gordon wrote.
“When housing bubbles unwind, there is major collateral damage and people are hurt through little or no fault of their own. And the historical record is that they do unwind, essentially without fail.”