[QUOTE="BMD004"]That went out the window when he started insulting people. Don't hold others to standards you yourself can't uphold. As it stands you're just a hypocrite.I never insult people first. That is something you and theone do constantly. 99% of the time I completely ignore those remarks during a discussion. In this one thread where I do make a joke, you are gonna get upset about it? Now that's hypocritical.[QUOTE="Ace6301"] So you complain about people not putting forward arguments but when they do you respond with bad jokes and insults. Are you trying to validate what I'm saying about you at this point?Ace6301
Barack Hussein the Worst Economic President Ever
This topic is locked from further discussion.
and think that fossil fuel consumption for energy is magically warming the earth, a la Al Gore's nonsense film.ZionismFTWExactly what is faulty about the reasoning that when fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere in large quantities, and that carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the greenhouse effect?
Exactly what is faulty about the reasoning that when fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere in large quantities, and that carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the greenhouse effect?[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"] and think that fossil fuel consumption for energy is magically warming the earth, a la Al Gore's nonsense film.PannicAtack
Obviously god wouldn't make humans capable of destroying the Earth.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]Not to echo or support that Zionist guy who seems to be a rapid libertarian trying to seem more intelligent and awesome than everyone else, but the fact that economics is less precise and more divisive a science than hard sciences doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the time, economics works. We have perfectly functional theories for why communist nations are poor and capitalist ones are rich, why the U.S. recovered from 2008 and Europe is going through multiple dip recessions, what an optimal tax policy is, .etc. Also, economics is hardly the only field that gets "data shocks", revisions and refinements based on new evidence happens in all sciences. Look at chemistry and how many times they had to update their atomic models, I've yet to see economic theories being disproven and recreated as much as the model of the atom. Point is, economics only seems more divisive and uncertain because there are a lot of schools of thought and economics is highly tied in to politics, allowing heretodox economics schools to easily gain traction like what Zionist is spouting. First of all, I am not a rabid libertarian. I am a conservative. You're right in mentioning that the disagreements within the field of economic science is largely due to the politicisation of the field. Legitimate economics are unpalatable to politicians who wish to promise the world to their constituents (i.e. Obama). The promises and policies of the left are irreconcilable with what we know about economics;, namely, that centralised planning via the government cannot produce a higher quality product more efficiently than the free market. The only way socialist demagogues like Obama can promise legislation that will magically produce more health care goods and services for less money and therefore benefit more Americans is by ignoring/rejecting legitimate economic theory. Political allies within the field (i.e. Paul Krugman, Austan Goolsbee, and fake economists like Robert Reich and Elizabeth Edwards) then advance the very same nonsense while exploiting their credentials. Is that you Kraychik? I didn't think you'd be so blatantly recycling your previous style and wording. Its possible for "government" to provide goods and services more efficiently than purely private models, this is basic externalities and market structures stuff. Not to mention that the Affordable Care Act is not "goverment production of health care goods and services" any more than federally enforced insurance policies on vehicles is government manufacturing of cars. Also lol at the idea that any of the people you mentioned are socialist.Just someone who happens to believe that economics is not something to be taken all that seriously as a science. Models and theories are fine and all, but they are prone to breaking down in the face of changing variables and factors the modeller is probably not aware of. Which is why things as complex as economies and financial systems often surprise since, unlike physics or chemistry, their rules and what can be deduced from them via observation are very fluid.
ZionismFTW
Exactly what is faulty about the reasoning that when fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere in large quantities, and that carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the greenhouse effect? So you're saying that this is the only factor affecting the temperature, and by extension the climate, of the world? How about the BBC reporting the other week that the globe's average temperature hasn't increased at all over the past fifteen years, with the last fifteen years pumping out for CO2 into the atmosphere than in any previous fifteen year period in history? I guess you're another flat-earth AGW believer.[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"] and think that fossil fuel consumption for energy is magically warming the earth, a la Al Gore's nonsense film.PannicAtack
[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] Not to echo or support that Zionist guy who seems to be a rapid libertarian trying to seem more intelligent and awesome than everyone else, but the fact that economics is less precise and more divisive a science than hard sciences doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the time, economics works. We have perfectly functional theories for why communist nations are poor and capitalist ones are rich, why the U.S. recovered from 2008 and Europe is going through multiple dip recessions, what an optimal tax policy is, .etc. Also, economics is hardly the only field that gets "data shocks", revisions and refinements based on new evidence happens in all sciences. Look at chemistry and how many times they had to update their atomic models, I've yet to see economic theories being disproven and recreated as much as the model of the atom. Point is, economics only seems more divisive and uncertain because there are a lot of schools of thought and economics is highly tied in to politics, allowing heretodox economics schools to easily gain traction like what Zionist is spouting. BarbariserFirst of all, I am not a rabid libertarian. I am a conservative. You're right in mentioning that the disagreements within the field of economic science is largely due to the politicisation of the field. Legitimate economics are unpalatable to politicians who wish to promise the world to their constituents (i.e. Obama). The promises and policies of the left are irreconcilable with what we know about economics;, namely, that centralised planning via the government cannot produce a higher quality product more efficiently than the free market. The only way socialist demagogues like Obama can promise legislation that will magically produce more health care goods and services for less money and therefore benefit more Americans is by ignoring/rejecting legitimate economic theory. Political allies within the field (i.e. Paul Krugman, Austan Goolsbee, and fake economists like Robert Reich and Elizabeth Edwards) then advance the very same nonsense while exploiting their credentials. Is that you Kraychik? I didn't think you'd be so blatantly recycling your previous style and wording. Its possible for "government" to provide goods and services more efficiently than purely private models, this is basic externalities and market structures stuff. Not to mention that the Affordable Care Act is not "goverment production of health care goods and services" any more than federally enforced insurance policies on vehicles is government manufacturing of cars. Also lol at the idea that any of the people you mentioned are socialist. "Externalities and market structure stuff"? That makes no sense.I guess this is your attempt to drop a few smart-sounding words as if it will bolster your position.
With few exceptions (the military, some transportation services, justice, other forms of security i.e. the police and fire services), the government cannot produce any products more efficiently than the free market. What this means is that as the government increases its role in directing certain industries, the quality and/or price must come down. This certainly applies to health care and education, both of which have seem dramatic reductions in quality and increases in cost as the government increases its role in managing these industries.
I suppose you're another flat-earther who believes in the fairy tale of AGW, as well?ZionismFTW
lol We've got another one here boys!
[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"] I suppose you're another flat-earther who believes in the fairy tale of AGW, as well?
HoolaHoopMan
lol We've got another one here boys!
I think it's one of our regulars with a different set of clothes.
he hath returned
kray is back to bestow his fanaticism upon us
I cant wait until him and Lai go at it
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]
[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"] I suppose you're another flat-earther who believes in the fairy tale of AGW, as well?
jimkabrhel
lol We've got another one here boys!
I think it's one of our regulars with a different set of clothes.
Should have noticed it with the whole 'leftist' lingo. Damn.[QUOTE="wis3boi"]
[QUOTE="dave123321"]kk isn't trying anymoreMakeMeaSammitch
he ever tried?
he used to try really hard, especially when his idol was around.Then he just slowly declined into trolling.
but rejoice, for the idol hath returnedI cant wait until him and Lai go at it
BossPerson
That is going to be a fun watch.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
I cant wait until him and Lai go at it
coolbeans90
That is going to be a fun watch.
Really interesting times ahead for OT, that's for sure.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="BMD004"]That went out the window when he started insulting people. BMD004Don't hold others to standards you yourself can't uphold. As it stands you're just a hypocrite.I never insult people first. That is something you and theone do constantly. 99% of the time I completely ignore those remarks during a discussion. In this one thread where I do make a joke, you are gonna get upset about it? Now that's hypocritical. It isn't hypocritical because I never claimed that insulting people was a big deal, because it isn't. For some weird reason though you think other people are butt hurt when you're the one refusing to engage in intelligent conversation when prompted because they said big nasty mean words to you. I hold myself to the same standards I hold others to, you don't. You're a hypocrite. I don't think anyone here is upset, at least I really hope you aren't because if you're calling people betas and getting upset over this then I think being a hypocrite is the least of your problems, I'm simply telling you that your attitude is why everyone here thinks you're dumb.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]
lol We've got another one here boys!
HoolaHoopMan
I think it's one of our regulars with a different set of clothes.
Should have noticed it with the whole 'leftist' lingo. Damn. Wk77 or vurrkthat's kraychik? Sounds too dumb to be him.he hath returned
kray is back to bestow his fanaticism upon us
I cant wait until him and Lai go at it
BossPerson
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]that's kraychik? Sounds too dumb to be him. what a performance last night. Too bad you're still going to lose the serieshe hath returned
kray is back to bestow his fanaticism upon us
I cant wait until him and Lai go at it
DroidPhysX
hoping the spurs will win dave123321Did Lai's book come out yet?
[QUOTE="dave123321"]hoping the spurs will win kingkong0124Did Lai's book come out yet? Not yet. Thinking he will announce something real soon. Can't rush greatness
[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] Not sure if troll or overly confident anti-intellectual. Barbariser
Just someone who happens to believe that economics is not something to be taken all that seriously as a science. Models and theories are fine and all, but they are prone to breaking down in the face of changing variables and factors the modeller is probably not aware of. Which is why things as complex as economies and financial systems often surprise since, unlike physics or chemistry, their rules and what can be deduced from them via observation are very fluid.
Not to echo or support that Zionist guy who seems to be a rapid libertarian trying to seem more intelligent and awesome than everyone else, but the fact that economics is less precise and more divisive a science than hard sciences doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the time, economics works. We have perfectly functional theories for why communist nations are poor and capitalist ones are rich, why the U.S. recovered from 2008 and Europe is going through multiple dip recessions, what an optimal tax policy is, .etc. Also, economics is hardly the only field that gets "data shocks", revisions and refinements based on new evidence happens in all sciences. Look at chemistry and how many times they had to update their atomic models, I've yet to see economic theories being disproven and recreated as much as the model of the atom. Point is, economics only seems more divisive and uncertain because there are a lot of schools of thought and economics is highly tied in to politics, allowing heretodox economics schools to easily gain traction like what Zionist is spouting.And there lies the rub. If you truly believe that economics is highly tied to politics, than anything beyond the most observable and basic postulates of economics is almost useless in the long run. Even those are increasingly useless in post-industrialized economies and those with dominating financial systems, which are not as tied to tangible or observable goods/services and manufacturing. The difference between atomic models and economic models is that regardless of what Dalton, Rutherford, Bohr et al have theorized, the composition of the atom has most definitely not changed. We have just gained further clarity and improved observation into it. Economics, on the other hand, is based on constantly changing variables. Economists seem to like to say "all other things being equal", but the truth is that nothing in an economy is ever that. You claim that there is such a thing as an optimal tax policy, and that there are explainable reasons why Europe is stagnating under the shadow of long term austerity and why the U.S. has recovered better than most, but those are only post hoc explanations. Ditto for your comment on communist nations (BTW, why did no one seem to foresee the demise of the Soviet Union? Many smart people even thought the iron curtain would never be lifted). In the face of such fluxing variables and politicised agenda, I find it very hard to believe any of the fitted narratives that economists seem to give. Which is why I find the thesis of this thread to be bunk no matter who you slice it. Fiscal and monetary policy might be important to at least try to get "right", but it's impossible to know what is optimal. Even if it seems to lend causality to better (or worse) economic times, it's not scientific to hold other things equal and say that it was a main factor in whatever happens, or that it was the most optimal thing that could have happened.
Not to echo or support that Zionist guy who seems to be a rapid libertarian trying to seem more intelligent and awesome than everyone else, but the fact that economics is less precise and more divisive a science than hard sciences doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the time, economics works. We have perfectly functional theories for why communist nations are poor and capitalist ones are rich, why the U.S. recovered from 2008 and Europe is going through multiple dip recessions, what an optimal tax policy is, .etc. Also, economics is hardly the only field that gets "data shocks", revisions and refinements based on new evidence happens in all sciences. Look at chemistry and how many times they had to update their atomic models, I've yet to see economic theories being disproven and recreated as much as the model of the atom. Point is, economics only seems more divisive and uncertain because there are a lot of schools of thought and economics is highly tied in to politics, allowing heretodox economics schools to easily gain traction like what Zionist is spouting.[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]
Just someone who happens to believe that economics is not something to be taken all that seriously as a science. Models and theories are fine and all, but they are prone to breaking down in the face of changing variables and factors the modeller is probably not aware of. Which is why things as complex as economies and financial systems often surprise since, unlike physics or chemistry, their rules and what can be deduced from them via observation are very fluid.
jetpower3
And there lies the rub. If you truly believe that economics is highly tied to politics, than anything beyond the most observable and basic postulates of economics is almost useless in the long run. Even those are increasingly useless in post-industrialized economies, which are not as tied to tangible or observable goods/services and manufacturing. The difference between atomic models and economic models is that regardless of what Dalton, Rutherford, Bohr et al have theorized, the composition of the atom has most definitely not changed. We have just gained further clarity and improved observation into it. Economics, on the other hand, is based on constantly changing variables. Economists seem to like to say "all other things being equal", but the truth is that nothing in an economy is ever that. You claim that there is such a thing as an optimal tax policy, and that there are explainable reasons why Europe is stagnating under the shadow of long term austerity and why the U.S. has recovered better than most, but those are only post hoc explanations. Ditto for your comment on communist nations (BTW, why did no one seem to foresee the demise of the Soviet Union? Many smart people even thought the iron curtain would never be lifted). In the face of such fluxing variables and politicised, I find it very hard to believe any of the fitted narratives that economists seem to give. Which is why I find the thesis of this thread to be bunk no matter who you slice it. Fiscal and monetary policy might be important to at least try to get "right", but it's impossible to know what is optimal. Even if it seems to lend causality to better (or worse) economic times, it's not scientific to hold other things equal and say that it was a main factor in whatever happens, or that it was the most optimal thing that could have happened.
You're missing the core of the message: economics is a science, and it is studied scientifically. The problem is that legitimate economic theories that are held up under scientific scrutiny are ignored due to political considerations. In other words, free markets are shunned by the left-wing because they are irreconcilable with the left's desire to centrally plan the economy in their pursuit of societal utopia. Leftist infiltration has even manufactured an pseudo-science academic field known as "political economy" (i.e. Robert Reich and Elizabeth Warren). Politicisation of economics is coming from one direction only.[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"] You're missing the core of the message: economics is a science, and it is studied scientifically. The problem is that legitimate economic theories that are held up under scientific scrutiny are ignored due to political considerations. In other words, free markets are shunned by the left-wing because they are irreconcilable with the left's desire to centrally plan the economy in their pursuit of societal utopia. Leftist infiltration has even manufactured an pseudo-science academic field known as "political economy" (i.e. Robert Reich and Elizabeth Warren). Politicisation of economics is coming from one direction only.HoolaHoopManYou should meet Lai.
Probably only a mirror is necessary.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]that's kraychik? Sounds too dumb to be him.he hath returned
kray is back to bestow his fanaticism upon us
I cant wait until him and Lai go at it
DroidPhysX
I kinda think that it's kraychik.
[QUOTE="ZionismFTW"] I suppose you're another flat-earther who believes in the fairy tale of AGW, as well?
HoolaHoopMan
lol We've got another one here boys!
... You needed to read his posts to realize he is another batsh!t crazy person? Just look at his sig...
so is lai a troll?dave123321
You can decide for yourself, since you communicate with him elsewhere. TDH and whatnot.
[QUOTE="dave123321"]so is lai a troll?jimkabrhel
You can decide for yourself, since you communicate with him elsewhere. TDH and whatnot.
Lai has shown a level of clarity and lucidity on tdh that isn't present here, so would have to say that he is a good troll. Although moving into putting too much effort into it[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="dave123321"]so is lai a troll?dave123321
You can decide for yourself, since you communicate with him elsewhere. TDH and whatnot.
Lai has shown a level of clarity and lucidity on tdh that isn't present here, so would have to say that he is a good troll. Although moving into putting too much effort into itSo what makes OT different? More people to disagree? Or does he think he's slumming it here?
Lai has shown a level of clarity and lucidity on tdh that isn't present here, so would have to say that he is a good troll. Although moving into putting too much effort into it[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
You can decide for yourself, since you communicate with him elsewhere. TDH and whatnot.
jimkabrhel
So what makes OT different? More people to disagree? Or does he think he's slumming it here?
the topics on tdh are really different then they are here. There they are really just close-knit chat threads about general topics like movies, cute stuff, day to day issues. Plus he is putting his efforts to winning the tdh summer olympics.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"][QUOTE="dave123321"] Lai has shown a level of clarity and lucidity on tdh that isn't present here, so would have to say that he is a good troll. Although moving into putting too much effort into itdave123321
So what makes OT different? More people to disagree? Or does he think he's slumming it here?
the topics on tdh are really different then they are here. There they are really just close-knit chat threads about general topics like movies, cute stuff, day to day issues. Plus he is putting his efforts to winning the tdh summer olympics.Good, better there than here.
Not to echo or support that Zionist guy who seems to be a rapid libertarian trying to seem more intelligent and awesome than everyone else, but the fact that economics is less precise and more divisive a science than hard sciences doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the time, economics works. We have perfectly functional theories for why communist nations are poor and capitalist ones are rich, why the U.S. recovered from 2008 and Europe is going through multiple dip recessions, what an optimal tax policy is, .etc. Also, economics is hardly the only field that gets "data shocks", revisions and refinements based on new evidence happens in all sciences. Look at chemistry and how many times they had to update their atomic models, I've yet to see economic theories being disproven and recreated as much as the model of the atom. Point is, economics only seems more divisive and uncertain because there are a lot of schools of thought and economics is highly tied in to politics, allowing heretodox economics schools to easily gain traction like what Zionist is spouting.[QUOTE="Barbariser"][QUOTE="jetpower3"]
Just someone who happens to believe that economics is not something to be taken all that seriously as a science. Models and theories are fine and all, but they are prone to breaking down in the face of changing variables and factors the modeller is probably not aware of. Which is why things as complex as economies and financial systems often surprise since, unlike physics or chemistry, their rules and what can be deduced from them via observation are very fluid.
jetpower3
And there lies the rub. If you truly believe that economics is highly tied to politics, than anything beyond the most observable and basic postulates of economics is almost useless in the long run. Even those are increasingly useless in post-industrialized economies and those with dominating financial systems, which are not as tied to tangible or observable goods/services and manufacturing. The difference between atomic models and economic models is that regardless of what Dalton, Rutherford, Bohr et al have theorized, the composition of the atom has most definitely not changed. We have just gained further clarity and improved observation into it. Economics, on the other hand, is based on constantly changing variables. Economists seem to like to say "all other things being equal", but the truth is that nothing in an economy is ever that. You claim that there is such a thing as an optimal tax policy, and that there are explainable reasons why Europe is stagnating under the shadow of long term austerity and why the U.S. has recovered better than most, but those are only post hoc explanations. Ditto for your comment on communist nations (BTW, why did no one seem to foresee the demise of the Soviet Union? Many smart people even thought the iron curtain would never be lifted). In the face of such fluxing variables and politicised agenda, I find it very hard to believe any of the fitted narratives that economists seem to give. Which is why I find the thesis of this thread to be bunk no matter who you slice it. Fiscal and monetary policy might be important to at least try to get "right", but it's impossible to know what is optimal. Even if it seems to lend causality to better (or worse) economic times, it's not scientific to hold other things equal and say that it was a main factor in whatever happens, or that it was the most optimal thing that could have happened.
Nope, these explanations have actually been around for a very long time. We've known that reduced government spending and budget balancing damages short term growth since the Great Depression, the problem is that many politicians in the E.U. and U.S. are ignorant of this very basic macroeconomic fact. Predictions of the Soviet Union collapse have technically been around since the 1920s, and it's hard to predict the collapse of a nation which heavily restricts information about themselves to the outside world. What we have known about their econometrics confirms every our economic theories about communism vs capitalism, they were consistently poorer than almost every First World nation with about 1/3 the per capita income of the United States, they had slower economic growth in the long term, they were very economically inefficient in all measures, .etc. Being tied to politics doesn't damage the credibility or usefulness of economics at all, anymore than the existence of creationists or climate change deniers makes geology and astrophysics unreliable. Why does "changing variables" make economics unreliable? Part of economics is about using maths to predict the effects of "changing variables" and how to respond to them. The composition of the atom doesn't change, but neither do basic micro economic laws. Holding other factors constant is done so that we can mathematically define the effects of changes in one variable, physicists and other hard sciences do this too. Stating "ceteris parabus, rising income leads to rising demand for a good depending on the income elasticity of demand" is no different from stating "assuming all else is constant, the pressure of a gas is directly proportional to its absolute temperature".
[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="Barbariser"] Not to echo or support that Zionist guy who seems to be a rapid libertarian trying to seem more intelligent and awesome than everyone else, but the fact that economics is less precise and more divisive a science than hard sciences doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the time, economics works. We have perfectly functional theories for why communist nations are poor and capitalist ones are rich, why the U.S. recovered from 2008 and Europe is going through multiple dip recessions, what an optimal tax policy is, .etc. Also, economics is hardly the only field that gets "data shocks", revisions and refinements based on new evidence happens in all sciences. Look at chemistry and how many times they had to update their atomic models, I've yet to see economic theories being disproven and recreated as much as the model of the atom. Point is, economics only seems more divisive and uncertain because there are a lot of schools of thought and economics is highly tied in to politics, allowing heretodox economics schools to easily gain traction like what Zionist is spouting. Barbariser
And there lies the rub. If you truly believe that economics is highly tied to politics, than anything beyond the most observable and basic postulates of economics is almost useless in the long run. Even those are increasingly useless in post-industrialized economies and those with dominating financial systems, which are not as tied to tangible or observable goods/services and manufacturing. The difference between atomic models and economic models is that regardless of what Dalton, Rutherford, Bohr et al have theorized, the composition of the atom has most definitely not changed. We have just gained further clarity and improved observation into it. Economics, on the other hand, is based on constantly changing variables. Economists seem to like to say "all other things being equal", but the truth is that nothing in an economy is ever that. You claim that there is such a thing as an optimal tax policy, and that there are explainable reasons why Europe is stagnating under the shadow of long term austerity and why the U.S. has recovered better than most, but those are only post hoc explanations. Ditto for your comment on communist nations (BTW, why did no one seem to foresee the demise of the Soviet Union? Many smart people even thought the iron curtain would never be lifted). In the face of such fluxing variables and politicised agenda, I find it very hard to believe any of the fitted narratives that economists seem to give. Which is why I find the thesis of this thread to be bunk no matter who you slice it. Fiscal and monetary policy might be important to at least try to get "right", but it's impossible to know what is optimal. Even if it seems to lend causality to better (or worse) economic times, it's not scientific to hold other things equal and say that it was a main factor in whatever happens, or that it was the most optimal thing that could have happened.
Nope, these explanations have actually been around for a very long time. We've known that reduced government spending and budget balancing damages short term growth since the Great Depression, the problem is that many politicians in the E.U. and U.S. are ignorant of this very basic macroeconomic fact. Predictions of the Soviet Union collapse have technically been around since the 1920s, and it's hard to predict the collapse of a nation which heavily restricts information about themselves to the outside world. What we have known about their econometrics confirms every our economic theories about communism vs capitalism, they were consistently poorer than almost every First World nation with about 1/3 the per capita income of the United States, they had slower economic growth in the long term, they were very economically inefficient in all measures, .etc. Being tied to politics doesn't damage the credibility or usefulness of economics at all, anymore than the existence of creationists or climate change deniers makes geology and astrophysics unreliable. Why does "changing variables" make economics unreliable? Part of economics is about using maths to predict the effects of "changing variables" and how to respond to them. The composition of the atom doesn't change, but neither do basic micro economic laws. Holding other factors constant is done so that we can mathematically define the effects of changes in one variable, physicists and other hard sciences do this too. Stating "ceteris parabus, rising income leads to rising demand for a good depending on the income elasticity of demand" is no different from stating "assuming all else is constant, the pressure of a gas is directly proportional to its absolute temperature".Using complex math or computer models to predict the changing nature of the variables on a macro economic scale is the whole problem. Stating rising income leads to rising demand might be good as a general rule of thumb, but it's much more difficult to measure an accurate elasticity of demand, especially when changing nonmonetary factors are involved in the goods/services or those involving goods/services that have no direct or long term precedent. The difference between stating that and properties of a gas is that the latter can be effectively tested. Unlike in hard sciences, or even fields like psychology, there is no way to test specific economics theories in a controlled experiment in the real world, and making predictions and observing the economic effect post hoc leads to the narrative fallacy I mentioned earlier. Even if you are think you are right, you have no way of knowing how right, how much variables you couldn't control for or observe played a part, and without extending your observation period into the indeterminate future, you still don't know the total effect of a specific policy or economic decision since even small deviations from expectations (or unobserved variables) can compound over time.
Again, I still hold that basic economics, the ones that have stood the test of time (and for more than a few hundred years at that) can be good as a rule of thumb, but it is not scientific and anything too complex/specific and tied to the times is going to cause problems.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment