What a degree in business and economics is worth...

[Alondro]

Not a damn thing as far as I'm concerned.

Here are some brilliant predictions from the enlighteded crowd who've helped us get into the financial disaster we're in.  For the full article, see here.

"I think this is a case where Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE - News) and Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM - News) are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under I think they are in good shape going forward." -- Barney Frank (D-Mass.), House Financial Services Committee chairman, July 14, 2008

"I expect there will be some failures. I don't anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system." -- Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, Feb. 28, 2008

"The market is in the process of correcting itself." -- President George W. Bush, in a Mar. 14, 2008 speech

"Existing-Home Sales to Trend Up in 2008" -- Headline of a National Association of Realtors press release, Dec. 9, 2007  On a personal note, the year before this release, my brother had just gotten out of real estate because he was being treated badly for his honesty and ethical business practices.  I told him it was a good thing he did, because I saw the pattern building to a collapse.  Tee hee hee!

I blame both parties for it.  They both had their hands DEEP in the pockets of the mortgage companies (Obama too.  One of the highest, if not the highest recipient of political contributions from Fannie Mae.  It'll be very interesting to watch what he actually does).  Which is just more reason that donations and politically-connected contract deals to and with politicians need to be far more heavily restricted. 

And no one listened to ME!!  Lest it ever be forgotten:  I WAS RIGHT!  HA HA HA HA!!

And a political one: A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win, the title of a book by conservative commentator Shelby Steele, published on Dec. 4, 2007.

I guess he hadn't figured on the GOP nominating McCain.   

[Noone]

I wouldn't say a degree in economics is worth nothing. It's certainly true that there are some bad apples in the system, but I think it's unfair to say that *all* economics degrees are worth nothing. I know in the coding field, there are certainly some programmers who really should take their refresher courses again, but saying that such education is worth nothing is a bit extreme. Granted, some of the things they have said are a bit alarming, but I can call out some of them for being politically motivated, to the point where I don't think that the person actually believes what they are saying.

"The market is in the process of correcting itself." -- President George W. Bush, in a Mar. 14, 2008 speech

For the rest of the year, the market kept correcting and correcting and correcting.

Primary example, aka, this one is an attempt to distort the public's view of the economic situation, in order to increase his popularity. Of course, it hasn't worked well. At last count, I think his approval rating was 21%. (Which compares to congress's 14%).

The one which jumped out at me the most was:

9. "In today's regulatory environment, it's virtually impossible to violate rules." -- Bernard Madoff, money manager, Oct. 20, 2007

About a year later, Madoff -- who once headed the Nasdaq Stock Market -- told investigators he had cost his investors $50 billion in an alleged Ponzi scheme.

Well, obviously, he didn't believe what he was saying... since he was already breaking the rules, and was likely saying this to try and open up more legal loopholes to exploit, or in an attempt to make his scheme look more honest. I still am shocked by Mr. Madoff.... $50 billion, I don't think I'll ever make that much money in my entire life.

Still, the others do scare me a bit... though I think that in these cases, we're seeing the worst cases and not the average. That, or they don't actually believe what they are saying and are trying to deceive whomever is listening, it certainly wouldn't surprise me nowadays. I might want to do some research on the speakers themselves to try and see if I can find anything from which a dishonest perspective might arise.

Oh... what a wonderful world... *faceplant*

[Tapewolf]

I wouldn't say a degree in economics is worth nothing. It's certainly true that there are some bad apples in the system, but I think it's unfair to say that *all* economics degrees are worth nothing.

With respect to Alondro, he does have a marked tendency to go for shock headlines.  He'd probably make quite a good copy editor for the Daily Wail or something.

[Valynth]

I wouldn't say a degree in economics is worth nothing. It's certainly true that there are some bad apples in the system, but I think it's unfair to say that *all* economics degrees are worth nothing.

With respect to Alondro, he does have a marked tendency to go for shock headlines.  He'd probably make quite a good copy editor for the Daily Wail or something. any news outlet.

Fixed it for ya.

[Azlan]

With respect to Alondro, he does have a marked tendency to go for shock headlines.  He'd probably make quite a good copy editor for the Daily Wail or something.

I had always hoped he was doing it to be a comedian and not because he jumps at the first thing he sees without reading deeper into the subjects...

[Damaris]

Congrats, Alondro, you managed to find only things that support your sensationalistic opinion.  Perhaps one of these days someone will post about how often scientists get things wrong, which I'm sure is just about as often.

[Azlan]

Congrats, Alondro, you managed to find only things that support your sensationalistic opinion.  Perhaps one of these days someone will post about how often scientists get things wrong, which I'm sure is just about as often.

Far more often then get them right.

[Alondro]

All I can say is, if anybody at the top did predict this was coming, they sure didn't bother trying to prevent it.

And if they did see it, why didn't they do anything?

Conspiracy theory time?

[Darkmoon]

*yawn*

[Valynth]

All I can say is, if anybody at the top did predict this was coming, they sure didn't bother trying to prevent it.

And if they did see it, why didn't they do anything?

Conspiracy theory time?

The conspiracy is:  "The government will bail us out anyway so we can dick it up as much as we want without suffering the consequences."  And that's pretty much it.

These companies have been "untouchable" in terms of economics for so long that when the economy was going south, they didn't think they had to do anything.  They were wrong.

[Jigsaw Forte]

All I can say is, if anybody at the top did predict this was coming, they sure didn't bother trying to prevent it.

And if they did see it, why didn't they do anything?

Conspiracy theory time?

Given that the economy as good as cost the Republicans the White House, I think it's safe to say that if they could've prevented it at all, they would've. By the same token, these same problems were in place by 2005 (the start of the first credit issues; correct me if I'm wrong), long before the Democrats had any power, so I wouldn't blame them either.

[Reese Tora]

All I can say is, if anybody at the top did predict this was coming, they sure didn't bother trying to prevent it.

And if they did see it, why didn't they do anything?

Conspiracy theory time?

People did see it coming, and they did try to prevent it.  The attempts at prevention are what spawned some of your quotes.  Unfortunately, the people who saw it were outnumebred by the people who didn't believe them and/or were benefiting from it.

And, for the record, the market is correcting, it's over corrected(which is natural), and historically speaking, it'll bob up and down a bit before it starts trending back up.

Maybe we've entered uncharted waters, financially speaking, and maybe we'll see history assert itself.  Only time will tell, but my money's on History.

[Alondro]

Kewl!  These people are even more pessimistic than I am!

Ultimate doom

I think we'd get along famously.   

[superluser]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/magazine/02wwln-Q4-t.html

Here's someone who agrees with Alondro.

[Valynth]

The real problem with this is that people seem to think that economics is a science.  It has never been, is not, and never will be.  This is the same mistake communism makes.  There is no "universal value" attached to any good and as such all markets are in constant flux.  It's all a matter of preception and as such, it's just a bunch of mind-fuckery with everyone trying to cheat everyone else within reason and legality or at least deluding themselves into believing as such.  Where as in the communist version, since it's goal of a universal scientific value does not exist, it winds up being the government that cheats the people with complete impunity.

[Reese Tora]

I disagree with the assesment that economics is not a science.  We can study the economy in a scientific fashion, a lot of it falls in the area of psychology, which is a soft science,a dn tehre si a lot of wiggle and inexacness because human eprceptions are involved.

I do agree that there's no magic number or set value that persists, but that doesn't rpeclude the ability to study, learn, and understand(to a limited extent) how it works.

[superluser]

Economics, as usually practised by people like the American Enterprise Institute and the bobbleheads on the chat shows is about as scientific as the books which claim to give you the lottery numbers.  Sometimes, less so.

On the other hand, the more boring economists at places like the National Bureau of Economic Research or The Conference Board are actually pretty scientifically rigorous.

[Valynth]

On the other hand, the more boring economists at places like the National Bureau of Economic Research or The Conference Board are actually pretty scientifically rigorous.

Applying scientific rigour to a subject does not make said subject science.  I could be scientifically rigorous with say, religion, but does that make it a science?

[Reese Tora]

Applying scientific rigour to a subject does not make said subject science.

By definition, it does, because science is the application of the scientific method.

Observe, hypothesise, test; if you can do this, you can perform science.

I could be scientifically rigorous with say, religion, but does that make it a science?

You wouldn't have very much(if any) religeon left when you were done, but it would be, yes.

[Valynth]

Applying scientific rigour to a subject does not make said subject science.

By definition, it does, because science is the application of the scientific method.

Observe, hypothesise, test; if you can do this, you can perform science.

Incorrect, science is about proving.  Using those methods, yes, but the core of science is proving something and by extension disproving everything that is not contained within the proof.  And as I've stated before you can't prove value, the base of any economic system.  Therefore, since you can't prove the base scientifically, nothing built on it can be proven scientifically.  Therefore economics is not a science.

[superluser]

Applying scientific rigour to a subject does not make said subject science.

By definition, it does, because science is the application of the scientific method.

Oh, there you go again.  You and your use of commonly accepted definitions of well-known words.

Well, it turns out you're wrong.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science defines science as the study of measurable and testable phenomenon.

Por those who still don't get it, I find this visual to be most illuminating.

Incorrect, science is about proving.

Karl Popper would like a word with you.

Science is not about proving.  It's about disproving.

[Valynth]

Incorrect, science is about proving.

Karl Popper would like a word with you.

Science is not about proving.  It's about disproving.

Read the rest of my post.  Would you like some salt with your words?

Also, you can only provide proof on what DOES exist, but you can't provide proof of something non-existing.

[superluser]

Read the rest of my post.  Would you like some salt with your words?

Go back and read what I said.

Now let's read some Popper:

My main thesis, then, is that the novelty of science and scientific method, which distinguishes it from the prescientific approach, is its consciously critical attitude to attempted solutions; it takes an active part in attempts at elimination, in attempts to criticize and falsify.

Conversely, attempts to save a theory from falsification also have their methodological function, as we have already seen. But my thesis is that such a dogmatic attitude is essentially characteristic of prescientific thinking, whereas the critical approach involving conscious attempts at falsification leads to science and governs scientific method.

Although the taking of sides undoubtedly has a function in scientific method, it is in my view important that the individual researcher should be aware of the underlying significance of attempts at falsification and of sometimes successful falsification.  For the scientific method is not cumulative (as Bacon of Verulam and Sir James Jeans taught); it is fundamentally revolutionary.  Scientific progress essentially consists in the replacement of earlier theories by later theories.  These new theories must be capable of solving all the problems the old theories solved, and of solving them at least as well. Thus Einstein's theory solves the problem of planetary motion and macro-mechanics in general, at least as well as, and perhaps better than, Newton's theory does. But the revolutionary theory starts from new assumptions, and in its conclusions it goes beyond and directly contradicts the old theory. This contradiction allows it to devise experiments that can distinguish the old from the new theory, but only in the sense that they can falsify at least one of the two theories. In fact, the experiments may prove the superiority of the surviving theory, but not its truth; and the surviving theory may soon be overtaken in its turn.

What matters is not how we prove, but how we disprove.  Science isn't about ``disproving everything that is not contained within the proof.''  Science is about disproving a particular theory, with the assumption that everything that we haven't disproved may yet turn out to be true.

[Reese Tora]

Applying scientific rigour to a subject does not make said subject science.

By definition, it does, because science is the application of the scientific method.

Oh, there you go again.  You and your use of commonly accepted definitions of well-known words.

Well, it turns out you're wrong.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science defines science as the study of measurable and testable phenomenon.

Por those who still don't get it, I find this visual to be most illuminating.

Applying scientific rigour to a subject

What, exactly, do you think scientific rigour means? If you're applying it, then you are doing something that involves testing or measuring, and that falls within the definition you provide.

[Valynth]

What matters is not how we prove, but how we disprove.  Science isn't about ``disproving everything that is not contained within the proof.''  Science is about disproving a particular theory, with the assumption that everything that we haven't disproved may yet turn out to be true.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I focus more on the only tool you have to actually disprove theories (what is actually there as oppose to what people claim is supposed to be there).

What, exactly, do you think scientific rigour means? If you're applying it, then you are doing something that involves testing or measuring, and that falls within the definition you provide.

Then whats the baseline?  In order to test the economic systems of the world, you need a baseline economy.  As I've stated, value has no restrictions as such it has no baseline.  Since economies are based on values of items/services, you can't apply the scientific method to the economy since you have no baseline/control.

[Reese Tora]

well, what's the baseline for weather? we could set an arbitraty baseline equal to that of, say earth fifty years ago, sure (that's what cliamte scientists seem to like doing, after all), or a baseline of a clear day with low wind speed,but you can as easily set an arbitrary baseline for the economy.

Many sciences, hard sciences, even, have no baseline.  Astronomy, Meteorology and Geology, for instance.  Any 'normal' is arrived at from studying or arbitrary in nature.

You don't need a control or a baseline for science unless you are testing for the presence or a magnitude of an effect.  The economy can be masured and observed, and as such is subject to the scientific method, the application of which makes it science.

[Valynth]

well, what's the baseline for weather? we could set an arbitraty baseline equal to that of, say earth fifty years ago, sure (that's what cliamte scientists seem to like doing, after all), or a baseline of a clear day with low wind speed,but you can as easily set an arbitrary baseline for the economy.

Many sciences, hard sciences, even, have no baseline.  Astronomy, Meteorology and Geology, for instance.  Any 'normal' is arrived at from studying or arbitrary in nature.

You don't need a control or a baseline for science unless you are testing for the presence or a magnitude of an effect.  The economy can be masured and observed, and as such is subject to the scientific method, the application of which makes it science.

Yes, but for those sciences you stated have concrete units of measure.  There is nothing concrete about value.  Therefore you can't measure it therefore it is not a science.

Name me one unit of measurement in the economy that is not changing and therefore can be used to measure the rest of it.

[superluser]

What, exactly, do you think scientific rigour means?

I was jokingly agreeing with you.

Name me one unit of measurement in the economy that is not changing and therefore can be used to measure the rest of it.

Chained dollars, for one.

[Fragmaster01]

Yes, but for those sciences you stated have concrete units of measure.  There is nothing concrete about value.  Therefore you can't measure it therefore it is not a science.

Think calculus. Value itself has no concreteness, but information about that value does matter. Hence, you can measure inflation, growth, compare/contrast different currencies to give a ratio; and there are things that have direct meaning when talking about economics from a societal standpoint(unemployment, for example).
Economics works like any science: mistakes are made, and economists learn from it and try to plan better for the future. Unfortunately, the field has issues due to both the fact the study of economics is relatively new compared to fields like physics or chemistry, and that the market is astounding in its ability to come up with new ways to fail people haven't seen before(example cut to avoid wall-o-text, and the current recession is a good example anyway).

[Valynth]

Name me one unit of measurement in the economy that is not changing and therefore can be used to measure the rest of it.

Chained dollars, for one.

The value of money itself changes even if inflation was non-existant.  Even when it's been adjusted to inflation, do you think a North Korean would place American money above his own?  Thus, the value of the dollar flucuates and thus it is not an accurate form of measurement.

Hence economics is almost entirely relative with and percieved stability formed simply by convincing large numbers of people that something has a certain value.

Yes, but for those sciences you stated have concrete units of measure.  There is nothing concrete about value.  Therefore you can't measure it therefore it is not a science.

Think calculus. Value itself has no concreteness, but information about that value does matter. Hence, you can measure inflation, growth, compare/contrast different currencies to give a ratio; and there are things that have direct meaning when talking about economics from a societal standpoint(unemployment, for example).
Economics works like any science: mistakes are made, and economists learn from it and try to plan better for the future. Unfortunately, the field has issues due to both the fact the study of economics is relatively new compared to fields like physics or chemistry, and that the market is astounding in its ability to come up with new ways to fail people haven't seen before(example cut to avoid wall-o-text, and the current recession is a good example anyway).

Information factors in, but only so far as humans allow it to.  Humans and humans alone determine how much they want something and thus they determine how valuable it is.  Sure, you can measure supply, but you can't measure demand until after the thought and by then it's too late as demand can shift drastically in a very short amount of time, why do you think there's always a massive rush around the stock markets even on a "stable" day?