Are states' rights more important than human lives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes. The only problem with Ben endorsing an empirical approach to economics is that on every issue Ben just interprets the available data to fit his bias.

Which, ironically, is what most economists end up doing .

It is amazing how conservative and liberal economists can look at the same data and use it to justify their models.

[kentonio]

I have a history degree. Imran's talking about the history of economics. Which means we're playing in my field.

Yet you demonstrably know nothing about history, and regularly make idiotic and blatently untrue assertions. You talking about reliable data is like Charlie Sheen lecturing about rationality and sober living.

[Sava]

I have a history degree.

Do you also drive a Dodge Stratus?

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you also drive a Dodge Stratus

No, but I stayed in a holiday inn express last night.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet you demonstrably know nothing about history, and regularly make idiotic and blatently untrue assertions. You talking about reliable data is like Charlie Sheen lecturing about rationality and sober living.

Yet, I remain the only person here arguing that we can obtain reliable economic data. odd that. I can understand why folks like you attack the empirical approach.

[kentonio]

Yet, I remain the only person here arguing that we can obtain reliable economic data. odd that. I can understand why folks like you attack the empirical approach.

I know next to nothing about economics, but when you're the only person arguing for something, it's usually a pretty reliable indicator that it's bull****.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes they are.

No, they aren't. The Chicago school pins it's hopes on theories with no grounding in reality, with Krugman et al. The available data we do have shows that the Austrian approach is the correct one to take. Why is Krugman so well liked? Because his theories let the can continue to be kicked down the road without any negative consequences.

That's actually the main complaint.

No, the main complaint about them, comes from the Chicago school vis-a-vis deficit spending and taxation.

If you believe social sciences are reducable to empiricism, you are dangerously close to saying just about everything is.

Did I say that? No. I said that I believe that economics can be reductable to empiricism. History - insofar as we can state that x believed y, we can do the same. We'd need a time machine to truly obtain reliable and reproductable data to meet the full standards of empiricism, ie "what really happened". As it is, we rely on Aristotle's maxim, that we should use the sources that we do possess over whatever theories are devised much later.

There are plenty of 'social' 'sciences', that really don't have any merit to them, which is why they don't benefit from this empirical approach. Sociology is the major offender here.

Do you realize just how difficult it is to get economic conditions to be "reproduceable" or to even have the same things in order a policy respond the same way?

Yes, I do. We're talking massive systems of discrete actions. This is why I think Physics has quite a bit to contribute, particularly statistical mechanics and probability theory.

Because it is nigh impossible to have the same series of economic events.

Yet, we can still obtain reliable information about certain economic quantities. I agree, we won't ever have perfect knowledge, but there's lots of room for improvement.

It is amusing that you don't think that people can twist economic data to support their own models.

I'm saying it doesn't matter. You can twist things however you want - the final question is, "does it work"? "does it make accurate predictions"? If the answer to that is no - then twist all you like.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know next to nothing about economics

It gives me comfort to know that people who know nothing disagree with me and agree with Imran.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The available data we do have shows that the Austrian approach is the correct one to take. Why is Krugman so well liked? Because his theories let the can continue to be kicked down the road without any negative consequences.

We're discussing actual economists, not armchair ones. Krugman is respected by economists for his economics work (ie, trade theory) and not his political stuff.

No, the main complaint about them, comes from the Chicago school vis-a-vis deficit spending and taxation.

False. One easy example, the boom-bust-cycle. An Austrian theory that has been blown to bits on an 'empirical' basis (including by Milton Friedman). Yet it somewhat persists - mostly because the empiricism is devalued in that school.

Did I say that? No. I said that I believe that economics can be reductable to empiricism. History - insofar as we can state that x believed y, we can do the same. We'd need a time machine to truly obtain reliable and reproductable data to meet the full standards of empiricism, ie "what really happened". As it is, we rely on Aristotle's maxim, that we should use the sources that we do possess over whatever theories are devised much later.

There are plenty of 'social' 'sciences', that really don't have any merit to them, which is why they don't benefit from this empirical approach. Sociology is the major offender here.

Same has been said of the study of economics. Can empirical data be used in economics? Yes. It is reduceable down to empiricism? Of course not - plenty of economics can't be reduced to experience (mostly because different groups twist the same data to support their models).

FWIW, economics is closer to sociology than you realize (the book "Freakonomics" explicitly blends the two).

Furthermore, amusingly enough, positivist sociology claims that it emphasizes empiricism - yet you claim no merit to it.

I'm saying it doesn't matter. You can twist things however you want - the final question is, "does it work"? "does it make accurate predictions"? If the answer to that is no - then twist all you like.

And yet, you seem to think the Austrian School is the way to go. Regardless of the fact it doesn't work nor makes accurate predictions. Then again, I don't know any economic school that is any good at all in making predictions.

[Sava]

No, but I stayed in a holiday inn express last night.

[Hauldren Collider]

And yet, you seem to think the Austrian School is the way to go. Regardless of the fact it doesn't work nor makes accurate predictions. Then again, I don't know any economic school that is any good at all in making predictions.

Then what the **** is the point of the entire field? This is blatantly false.

[Ben Kenobi]

We're discussing actual economists, not armchair ones. Krugman is respected by economists for his economics work (ie, trade theory) and not his political stuff.

Interesting definition. I would argue his theories regarding public finances qualify as under the scope of economics.

False. One easy example, the boom-bust-cycle. An Austrian theory that has been blown to bits on an 'empirical' basis (including by Milton Friedman).

Oh, right, the "happy days are here again", weren't we last here in 1928 - the theory that economic expansion is perpetual? No - it's not. The economy is cyclical and economic expansion isn't perpetual.

Yet it somewhat persists - mostly because the empiricism is devalued in that school.

It persists because it has it's foundation in the actual data - that the economy does ebb and flow and that public policy should take this into account. Repeat after me - economic expansion isn't perpetual. Friedman can spend into oblivion - it will not change the reality.

Same has been said of the study of economics.

Unjustifiably so, IMHO. I think economics can have an empirical basis. The economists who resist this are the ones who know that their models have no empirical basis.

Of course not - plenty of economics can't be reduced to experience

Christ. Experience!= Empericism. I already explained this. Observations must measure something in order to be empirical. Observing that a can looks nice is not the same as an observation that the can costs X amount of dollars, or that it had X amount of sales.

FWIW, economics is closer to sociology than you realize (the book "Freakonomics" explicitly blends the two).

Yes, bad economics has plenty to do with sociology. See Marx et al.

Furthermore, amusingly enough, positivist sociology claims that it emphasizes empiricism - yet you claim no merit to it.

What people claim has nothing to do with reality, unfortunately. Positivism denies the existence of objective truth, ergo, it's worthless to assess matters in an empirical fashion.

And yet, you seem to think the Austrian School is the way to go.

Over the Chicago school? Absolutely.

Then again, I don't know any economic school that is any good at all in making predictions.

Wow, so you're basically saying your entire education was a waste. Good to know.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then what the **** is the point of the entire field? This is blatantly false.

Imran's the economist

How dare you argue with him!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then what the **** is the point of the entire field? This is blatantly false.

Plenty of people ask this quite often actually . Economists have shown themselves to be very bad at prediction. Its more like making educated guesses, but the world economy is not so easy to tame. I've come to see it as more akin to philosphy than biology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben, you realize your post #267 has almost comical errors in detailing a) what Milton Friedman (and the Monetarist school) believes and b) what Postivism is; to the point where you just about ascribe the exact opposite of their beliefs to them.

Secondly, those who are considered 'empirical economists' (such as the Montarist school) have stated that the Austrian business cycle theory has been shown to be empirically false. Which kind of makes your entire position interesting.