I have a serious question

[lane]

Ha Joon Chang was saying that the boundaries of a free market could not be objectively ascertained. Markets are not free as they were because you cannot buy slaves, or employ children. Therefore economics is not a science like many economists say it is.

I am not 100% convinced.

I think economics is generally regarded as a SOCIAL science as is Sociology and possibly Psychology. The think with economics what makes if different from physical sciences is that you can't really conduct experiments very easily. You can make observations and draw conclusions and develop theories but you can't generally test them. However I guess developing theories regarding black holes or the origin of the universe is much the same.

I guess economics is really about predicting the behaviour of individuals and developing theories from that which would make it more of a social science.

 

[lane]

Ha Joon Chang was saying that the boundaries of a free market could not be objectively ascertained. Markets are not free as they were because you cannot buy slaves, or employ children. Therefore economics is not a science like many economists say it is.

I am not 100% convinced.

I think that is a poor example though. Economics could develop theories regarding what the economic impact would be of employing children or owning slaves quite easily I would have thought. In fact it would be possible to draw conclusions from observing economies where this is allowed.

 

[C R]

Ha Joon Chang was saying that the boundaries of a free market could not be objectively ascertained. Markets are not free as they were because you cannot buy slaves, or employ children. Therefore economics is not a science like many economists say it is.

I am not 100% convinced.

That's a non sequitur if I ever saw one, I can't do whatever I want, ergo economics is not a science.

 

[Yellow Fang]

That's a non sequitur if I ever saw one, I can't do whatever I want, ergo economics is not a science.

They weren't the only examples. There were others like not being able to buy government positions or buy legal decisions. There are other regulations on pollution and working hours and safety. I think he was arguing that markets are not entirely free anywhere, so what's the definition of a free market? If you cannot classify what a thing is then how can you work out how it reacts to stimuli, or what outputs you get for what inputs?

 

[Yellow Fang]

I think economics is generally regarded as a SOCIAL science as is Sociology and possibly Psychology. The think with economics what makes if different from physical sciences is that you can't really conduct experiments very easily. You can make observations and draw conclusions and develop theories but you can't generally test them. However I guess developing theories regarding black holes or the origin of the universe is much the same.

I guess economics is really about predicting the behaviour of individuals and developing theories from that which would make it more of a social science.

I was thinking isn't economics a social science? Who really pretends it's a hard science? Maybe lots of people do. Some social scientists work by conducting carefully designed questionnaires, crunching statistics and looking for indicators, such as consumption of anti-depressants. They spend much time trying to demonstrate that their results as free from bias. Then when they become successful, they write very biassed books for the public.

I don't think research into black holes and the origin of the universe is the same. That all seems to be done by thought experiment, followed by a lot of fairly pure maths, followed by predictions of phenomena, followed by massively expensive experiments to confirm those phenomena.

 

[Threevok]

Religion : Having faith in something you can't prove

Science : Having faith in something you can

 

[lane]

I was thinking isn't economics a social science? Who really pretends it's a hard science? Maybe lots of people do. Some social scientists work by conducting carefully designed questionnaires, crunching statistics and looking for indicators, such as consumption of anti-depressants. They spend much time trying to demonstrate that their results as free from bias. Then when they become successful, they write very biassed books for the public.

I don't think research into black holes and the origin of the universe is the same. That all seems to be done by thought experiment, followed by a lot of fairly pure maths, followed by predictions of phenomena, followed by massively expensive experiments to confirm those phenomena.

Not sure there is that much difference. In economics it will first be thought experiment, such as developing the theory of supply and demand and then observing to try to find evidence of the phenomena in practice. I think where Economics differs is that:
- It often assumes individuals act rationally when it is clear they do not (physics as far as I am aware is more predictable)
- Economics often delves into the realm of behavioural Economics (e.g. individuals are not rational) which becomes more subjective
- Economic theory is closely related to an individuals political preference or what type of society they prefer to have and is therefore more subject to manipulation and bias then physics. We have a choice of economic systems we have no choice regarding the laws of physics.

Either way the critique of economics in the book you are reading appears faulty.

 

[lane]

They weren't the only examples. There were others like not being able to buy government positions or buy legal decisions. There are other regulations on pollution and working hours and safety. I think he was arguing that markets are not entirely free anywhere, so what's the definition of a free market? If you cannot classify what a thing is then how can you work out how it reacts to stimuli, or what outputs you get for what inputs?

I still think this critique is rubbish. Economics deals extensively with externalities such as pollution and also the impact of regulation. Is economics even exclusively about the free market - surely there are economic models of how different systems will work and the different ways in which different systems will work.

 

[Brains]

As the 'free market' does not exist, for a free market to exist it has to have rules that are agreed by the participants
(Otherwise I'd simply have my Child Slaves nuke the opposition).
Therefore Economics is not a science, but rather a belief in the value of stuff

 

[lane]

As the 'free market' does not exist, for a free market to exist it has to have rules that are agreed by the participants
(Otherwise I'd simply have my Child Slaves nuke the opposition).
Therefore Economics is not a science, but rather a belief in the value of stuff

Economics is not just about the free market. It is about how economies work and respond within a given framework of rules.

 

[tyred]

This thread is far too serious.