Rejecting biology is evil, but rejecting economics is second nature?

[CSMR]

Rejecting biology is evil, but rejecting economics is second nature?
This is the attitude that seems to prevail on this forum, particularly among the majority left-wingers.
If someone questions evolution, he is worthy to receive every possible insult. But when someone suggests that the economy should be thought about using the ideas of economic theory he comes under sustained attack. Isn't this a paradoxical situation? The basic theories of economics are if anything even more successful than the theory of natural selection.

 

[TheBeast]

or you can be like GW and reject them both ....

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Rejecting biology is evil, but rejecting economics is second nature?
This is the attitude that seems to prevail on this forum, particularly among the majority left-wingers.
If someone questions evolution, he is worthy to receive every possible insult. But when someone suggests that the economy should be thought about using the ideas of economic theory he comes under sustained attack. Isn't this a paradoxical situation? The basic theories of economics are if anything even more successful than the theory of natural selection.

What economic theory are you saying is rejected?

Free-market economy?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TheBeast
or you can be like GW and reject them both ....

Republican and Democratic government take the advice of economists and do not reject their understandings of how the economy basically functions. This includes President Bush, who like presidents before him has been advised by his council of economic advisors and other groups. Also why do you think President Bush rejects biology? Does he personally deny evolution by natural selection?
I am thinking of members of this forum who have given their opinions on both subjects.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Republican and Democratic government take the advice of economists and do not reject their understandings of how the economy basically functions. This includes President Bush, who like presidents before him has been advised by his council of economic advisors and other groups. Also why do you think President Bush rejects biology? Does he personally deny evolution by natural selection?
I am thinking of members of this forum who have given their opinions on both subjects.

Your still not saying what exactly is being rejected....?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: bthorny
What economic theory are you saying is rejected?
Free-market economy?

How a market economy works for example. Is the price of oil determined by supply and demand or is it determined (as I have been told here several times recently) by the degree of greed of oil companies? The basic economic theory here is even simpler than evolution by natural selection and really people should understand it. Certainly there are slightly more complex questions that are misunderstood like trade and gains from trade (recent questions about employing illegals, jobs being contracted out overseas), evauating assets in the future by means of futures etc. But I don't blame the man on the street for not understanding all this. Supply and demand however, I think he ought to understand.

 

[CSMR]

And how buying and selling things works, as is coming up in our discussion in another thread!

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: bthorny
What economic theory are you saying is rejected?
Free-market economy?

How a market economy works for example. Is the price of oil determined by supply and demand or is it determined (as I have been told here several times recently) by the degree of greed of oil companies? The basic economic theory here is even simpler than evolution by natural selection and really people should understand it. Certainly there are slightly more complex questions that are misunderstood like trade and gains from trade (recent questions about employing illegals, jobs being contracted out overseas), evauating assets in the future by means of futures etc. But I don't blame the man on the street for not understanding all this. Supply and demand however, I think he ought to understand.

I think people generally understand how things work in theory, the problem with them becomes application...and about the flaws in the theory as related to outcomes in "real life"...

For instance, the case in south america in regards to water.....countries were required to privatize utilities to get loans (in the name of free market)....outcome..... groups of people were confronted with paying 1/3 of their income to just pay their water bill to bechtel....basically it's human outcomes and that the theories are never applied, just a peverted version of the theory under the guise of a false pretense of a free market as can be seen in the above case if researched...

a lot can be learned latin america...

Democrat or republican...no matter...the system is not pure to any economic theory... economic theory always comes with assumptions...

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: bthornyI think people generally understand how things work in theory, the problem with them becomes application...and about the flaws in the theory as related to outcomes in "real life"...

No I don't think they do on this forum. The conditions under which economic theories give good approximations to reality are fairly well understood.

For instance, the case in south america in regards to water.....countries were required to privatize utilities to get loans (in the name of free market)....outcome..... groups of people were confronted with paying 1/3 of their income to just pay their water bill to bechtel....basically it's human outcomes and that the theories are never applied, just a peverted version of the theory under the guise of a false pretense of a free market as can be seen in the above case if researched...

Economic theory does not generate policy. It does provide a basis for a politician for example to make a decision having a reasonable idea of the consequences. In the case of privatizations in developing countries, there is a lot that cannot be predicted or that is very difficult to study and it is certainly not possible to say something like "economics tells you to privatize utilities".

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: bthornyI think people generally understand how things work in theory, the problem with them becomes application...and about the flaws in the theory as related to outcomes in "real life"...

No I don't think they do on this forum. The conditions under which economic theories give good approximations to reality are fairly well understood.

For instance, the case in south america in regards to water.....countries were required to privatize utilities to get loans (in the name of free market)....outcome..... groups of people were confronted with paying 1/3 of their income to just pay their water bill to bechtel....basically it's human outcomes and that the theories are never applied, just a peverted version of the theory under the guise of a false pretense of a free market as can be seen in the above case if researched...

Economic theory does not generate policy. It does provide a basis for a politician for example to make a decision having a reasonable idea of the consequences. In the case of privatizations in developing countries, there is a lot that cannot be predicted or that is very difficult to study and it is certainly not possible to say something like "economics tells you to privatize utilities".

basically what I'm saying is that it is not an economics problem, it is a policy/political/applicability problem and yes I suppose you are correct in your assumptions that not all people understand theories...because many don't....so i would be ignorant to assume that all do.

 

[Finality]

Originally posted by: bthorny

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: bthornyI think people generally understand how things work in theory, the problem with them becomes application...and about the flaws in the theory as related to outcomes in "real life"...

No I don't think they do on this forum. The conditions under which economic theories give good approximations to reality are fairly well understood.

For instance, the case in south america in regards to water.....countries were required to privatize utilities to get loans (in the name of free market)....outcome..... groups of people were confronted with paying 1/3 of their income to just pay their water bill to bechtel....basically it's human outcomes and that the theories are never applied, just a peverted version of the theory under the guise of a false pretense of a free market as can be seen in the above case if researched...

Economic theory does not generate policy. It does provide a basis for a politician for example to make a decision having a reasonable idea of the consequences. In the case of privatizations in developing countries, there is a lot that cannot be predicted or that is very difficult to study and it is certainly not possible to say something like "economics tells you to privatize utilities".

basically what I'm saying is that it is not an economics problem, it is a policy/political/applicability problem and yes I suppose you are correct in your assumptions that not all people understand theories...because many don't....so i would be ignorant to assume that all do.

I personally have a degree in Economics & Finance but understand the basics of politics and the problems people go through.

The problem with free trade is that while it benefits the economy as a whole its not an effect that can be measured immediately. If everyone remembers about 15 years ago peolep where howling about the economic demise of America because it was losing manufacturing jobs and thus the economy would collapse. Fast forward to today and we see that GDP has nearly doubled over that time period.

Simple fact is that during that time America was forced to innovate into hogher output goods and services and the overall economy has gained tremendously.

The problem was however that blue collar workers who added little to value creation (ie 1 person created an overall gain in $5000 in value vs a white collar worker who adds about $20,000 in overall value is huge), and these guys where whining the loudest. No one knew for sure that the white collar job would be created but economic theory suggested it would and it has.

Basically politicians know this but people dont, politicians have to play the rhetoric card because face it they are the ones who are elected into office by the common people and the common people dont want to hear how free trade is good when the lose their $15/hour manufacturing job when they could possibly get a job that pays double somewhere down the line - assuming they retrain.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: CSMR
Rejecting biology is evil, but rejecting economics is second nature?
This is the attitude that seems to prevail on this forum, particularly among the majority left-wingers.
If someone questions evolution, he is worthy to receive every possible insult. But when someone suggests that the economy should be thought about using the ideas of economic theory he comes under sustained attack. Isn't this a paradoxical situation? The basic theories of economics are if anything even more successful than the theory of natural selection.

What!?

I definitely think economics should be thought about in terms of economic theory. But economic theory is full of math and other such fuzzy stuff. so . . . how about a lesson?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: CSMR
Rejecting biology is evil, but rejecting economics is second nature?
This is the attitude that seems to prevail on this forum, particularly among the majority left-wingers.
If someone questions evolution, he is worthy to receive every possible insult. But when someone suggests that the economy should be thought about using the ideas of economic theory he comes under sustained attack. Isn't this a paradoxical situation? The basic theories of economics are if anything even more successful than the theory of natural selection.

What!?

I definitely think economics should be thought about in terms of economic theory. But economic theory is full of math and other such fuzzy stuff. so . . . how about a lesson?

Math ain't fuzzy. It's the statistics and their metrics 🙂. That's even before politicians get involved (HFCS being a prime example, IMO).

 

[slash196]

The only problem is that biology is determined by concrete chemical laws. Economics is determined by the actions and reactions of humans, which is a LOT harder to understand. "Economics" isn't a hard-and-fast science, it's a trial and error (and more commonly trial-by-fire) crapshoot.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: slash196
The only problem is that biology is determined by concrete chemical laws. Economics is determined by the actions and reactions of humans, which is a LOT harder to understand. "Economics" isn't a hard-and-fast science, it's a trial and error (and more commonly trial-by-fire) crapshoot.

Actually biology is quite complex and there are far from many absolutes

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: slash196
The only problem is that biology is determined by concrete chemical laws. Economics is determined by the actions and reactions of humans, which is a LOT harder to understand. "Economics" isn't a hard-and-fast science, it's a trial and error (and more commonly trial-by-fire) crapshoot.

Actually biology is quite complex and there are far from many absolutes

I worked in a university biology lab for a year, I know that biology has its fair share of uncertainty. I was making a comparison; In biology, there are things that we don't know. In economics, there are things that we CAN'T know.

 

[TahoeMax]

Originally posted by: slash196
"Economics" isn't a hard-and-fast science, it's a trial and error (and more commonly trial-by-fire) crapshoot.

Well, i wouldn't quite say it's a crapshoot. it's people looking at how people have reacted to situations over decades or centuries and making predictions based on those reactions. People are predictable, to an extent. To throw out a very basic example, it's constantly shown that, when given a choice between advancing one's own interests and working toward the betterment of all, almost any level of society will choose its own interests, whether that may be a person, a group, or a state. OPEC countries invest their profits in American banks. American policies protect American interests. The French have protected their jobs for hundreds of years. It certainly isn't "science" as people generally accept the word. it's social science and holds no pretensions about being anything more (unless it's a politician talking). If people could accept the fact that what economics does is provide models, there wouldn't be any trouble. the problem, however, is that people expect it to provide solutions to all of life's woes.

 

[smack Down]

The problem with free trade is that while it benefits the economy as a whole its not an effect that can be measured immediately. If everyone remembers about 15 years ago peolep where howling about the economic demise of America because it was losing manufacturing jobs and thus the economy would collapse. Fast forward to today and we see that GDP has nearly doubled over that time period.

Simple fact is that during that time America was forced to innovate into hogher output goods and services and the overall economy has gained tremendously.

The problem was however that blue collar workers who added little to value creation (ie 1 person created an overall gain in $5000 in value vs a white collar worker who adds about $20,000 in overall value is huge), and these guys where whining the loudest. No one knew for sure that the white collar job would be created but economic theory suggested it would and it has.

The problem is losing manfacturing jobs has little to do with creating white collar jobs. Whoes is to say that we couldn't have had china's growth in GDP and ours if it wasn't for free trade?

Edit: GDP is an sum. Most people don't give a damn about the sum they want to know how they are doing. Free trade is bad for those with little to trade.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Basic economic theory is quite wrong, but is what free-market true-believers depend on for support.

Mix in some understanding of market power, rational choice theory, externalities, and few other topics, and you have something that might at least give some useful indication of what's going on. But even then it won't be 'right'.

Your basic premise that economic theory is better supported than evolution is highly flawed.

 

[DotheDamnTHing]

the problem with neoclassical economics is that it presents itself as a science, with laws, formulae etc, when in fact, it completely ignores the political sphere, in which it is grounded

 

[MonkeyK]

Economics is a social science.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: bthorny

Originally posted by: CSMR
Rejecting biology is evil, but rejecting economics is second nature?
This is the attitude that seems to prevail on this forum, particularly among the majority left-wingers.
If someone questions evolution, he is worthy to receive every possible insult. But when someone suggests that the economy should be thought about using the ideas of economic theory he comes under sustained attack. Isn't this a paradoxical situation? The basic theories of economics are if anything even more successful than the theory of natural selection.

What economic theory are you saying is rejected?

Free-market economy?

The theory that requires the Serfs (us) to worship the Lords (rich folks like oil execs and Bill Gates), of course.

 

[Finality]

Originally posted by: smack Down

The problem with free trade is that while it benefits the economy as a whole its not an effect that can be measured immediately. If everyone remembers about 15 years ago peolep where howling about the economic demise of America because it was losing manufacturing jobs and thus the economy would collapse. Fast forward to today and we see that GDP has nearly doubled over that time period.

Simple fact is that during that time America was forced to innovate into hogher output goods and services and the overall economy has gained tremendously.

The problem was however that blue collar workers who added little to value creation (ie 1 person created an overall gain in $5000 in value vs a white collar worker who adds about $20,000 in overall value is huge), and these guys where whining the loudest. No one knew for sure that the white collar job would be created but economic theory suggested it would and it has.

The problem is losing manfacturing jobs has little to do with creating white collar jobs. Whoes is to say that we couldn't have had china's growth in GDP and ours if it wasn't for free trade?

Edit: GDP is an sum. Most people don't give a damn about the sum they want to know how they are doing. Free trade is bad for those with little to trade.

Thats pretty much wrong.

The demise in blue collar jobs gave a need for the economy to innovate and push itself up the ladder. Closed market systems never work.

Basically imagine the US closed itself off from all imports/exports there would be no export of American tech ie MS and there would be a huge rise in the cost of goods thanks to organizations like the UAW. Costlier PCs and electronics for all as well as a total lack of innovation, imagine if GM, Ford & Chrysler where the only car sellers in the US.

As for "Free trade is bad for those with little to trade. " I'm afraid you've learnt the hippy version. Take China, they dont have too many natural resources except for people and look what they have done with that. The same is possible for any country that has the will to suceede.

India was a closed market economy for decades with little growth in its economy. Fast forward to about 10 years ago when the economy started opening up and its seen tremendous economic growth.

Its a very hard big picture to grasp but once you do everything makes sense, including the tremendous growth we are seeing in world economies. Basically free trade when done right = good for all.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Mix in some understanding of market power, rational choice theory, externalities, and few other topics, and you have something that might at least give some useful indication of what's going on. But even then it won't be 'right'.

Rational choice theory, if properly applied, destroys the case for mass franchise democracy.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Mix in some understanding of market power, rational choice theory, externalities, and few other topics, and you have something that might at least give some useful indication of what's going on. But even then it won't be 'right'.

Rational choice theory, if properly applied, destroys the case for mass franchise democracy.

Actually, it depends on the weight you place on the inconvenience of voting.

Edit - in other news, this thread isn't about democracy anyway😉