Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading the wikipedia page about supply side economics and saw this little gem:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Critics of supply-side economics point to the lack of academic economics credentials by movement leaders such as Jude Wanniski and Robert Bartley to imply that the theories behind it are bankrupt.
Ok, this is a theme I see often when I hear people with left-leaning political views talk about their economic and or political opinions. That they believe them self's to be smarter on the bases that they are more educated. But tell me, how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place? How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place? And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science. It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
I was reading the wikipedia page about supply side economics and saw this little gem:
Ok, this is a theme I see often when I hear people with left-leaning political views talk about their economic and or political opinions. That they believe them self's to be smarter on the bases that they are more educated. But tell me, how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place? How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place? And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science. It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
Economics is a mix of humanities and quantitative analysis. Education can enhance one's understanding of both.
I was reading the wikipedia page about supply side economics and saw this little gem:
Ok, this is a theme I see often when I hear people with left-leaning political views talk about their economic and or political opinions. That they believe them self's to be smarter on the bases that they are more educated. But tell me, how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place? How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place? And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science. It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
I am not a liberal but considering that so many Americans don't understand simple concepts like supply and demand I'd say some formal exposure to economics helps.
I think the average American doesn't understand:
- money supply
- taxation
- "free" government programs
- what "marginal" means
- debt, their own or the national version
I was reading the wikipedia page about supply side economics and saw this little gem:
Ok, this is a theme I see often when I hear people with left-leaning political views talk about their economic and or political opinions. That they believe them self's to be smarter on the bases that they are more educated. But tell me, how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place? How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place?
And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science. It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
I was reading the wikipedia page about supply side economics and saw this little gem:
Ok, this is a theme I see often when I hear people with left-leaning political views talk about their economic and or political opinions. That they believe them self's to be smarter on the bases that they are more educated. But tell me, how is it even possible to learn "correct" economics when economics isn't even a hard science in the first place? How can somebody be a smarter economist than someone else because they studied it at school when economics is an extremely subjective field and highly open to interpretation in the first place? And then there is also the fact the economics is largely value rather than fact based, with many policies being favored or rejected by people based on principles rather than any kind of actual hard science. It is still possible to believe some values are worse than others, but very few economic views are actual hard facts as opposed to just being someones personal view.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
So, you don't know any right leaning people who think they know better than liberals when it comes to economics and politics? Ha.
As far as education is concerned, it is VERY important in economics, because if you're a good economist, you have to take into account how a particular policy or view will function in the real world, and one of the best ways to do that is to look at historical economic data to see how such policies and views affected the economy. Hindsight is 20/20, but if you never look back and learn what has happened before, then you're clueless when it comes to figuring out what will happen NOW based on a similar set of economic data and policy.
The one aspect that you are correct on however, is that economic views can be more theoretical, rather than "hard facts." That doesn't mean that education doesn't play a part, it simply enables you to come to a closer prediction of what the economy will actually do vs someone who is an "armchair" economist.
Case in point, I remember a lot of "right leaning" economists and politicians shouting doom and gloom stories about how we were going to induce hyperinflation after 2009 with the actions the Fed took in stabilizing the economy.
Yet here we are, in 2015, and none of that ever materialized, and all the people who said that it would slithered quietly back into their holes and ate crow. The Fed wasn't worried about hyperinflation, and neither was anyone else who was well versed on the causes of the recession.
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
Why does education matter for anything? I'll put my money on the guy who studied for 4+ years straight, and then spent a few decades working in the field.
Concerning supply-side, you don't need to be an economist to predict what would happen in that scenario. It didn't work in the 80s, and would be even less likely to work now. That's assuming that your goal is increased productivity and prosperity for the great majority of citizens. If you wish for the top 0.1% to get richer, it will work great.
Yet here we are, in 2015, and none of that ever materialized, and all the people who said that it would slithered quietly back into their holes and ate crow.
If only...
They are still out there raving about it last I checked.
lol. Econometrics is as futile as trying to study to a slot machine until you can "understand" it enough to win the jackpot. Human society is simply too complex and unpredictable for it to be possible to decipher it through numbers and data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
As far as education is concerned, it is VERY important in economics, because if you're a good economist, you have to take into account how a particular policy or view will function in the real world, and one of the best ways to do that is to look at historical economic data to see how such policies and views affected the economy.
1. What is a good economist and a bad economist? How does one give objectively correct answers to such a question that is not colored by personal opinion and world view?
2. When a policy is enacted in the real world 10 different people will give you 10 different points of views of what it has done. Which just proves my argument that economics are more about points of views rather then hard fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
Why does education matter for anything? I'll put my money on the guy who studied for 4+ years straight, and then spent a few decades working in the field.
You argument assumes that all education is equally useful. Since this isn't true your argument is flawed.
lol. Econometrics is as futile as trying to study to a slot machine until you can "understand" it enough to win the jackpot. Human society is simply too complex and unpredictable for it to be possible to decipher it through numbers and data.
You would be surprised at how accurate predictive models actually are. I'm not sure I care to convince you otherwise, but if models could not be built to predict events companies would not be paying analysts, actuaries, and engineers $200K/yr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
1. What is a good economist and a bad economist? How does one give objectively correct answers to such a question that is not colored by personal opinion and world view?
2. When a policy is enacted in the real world 10 different people will give you 10 different points of views of what it has done. Which just proves my argument that economics are more about points of views rather then hard fact.
Why would you ask "people" what a policy did instead of research what a policy did?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ha.
