It's ridiculous that some people consider economics a "science"

[supercow]

Reading the minutes of the Reseeve Bank meetings on interest rates you realise immediately two things:

• they are very high level, rather than detailed, with little to no quotations (no who said what, rather "members noted" and something vague follows blahblah), you will hear about some supposed "evidence" but it is not included or even referenced
• it's full of speculations, assumptions even where evidence is not available, ambiguous af. E.g. "This could mean X but it could also mean Y or even Z. But we "believe" it's X. (believe ha)

Sure reality is complex, but a handful of people to be paid that much to come together and speculate, usually very politically influenced and motivated AND, more importantly, have the power to make or break people's lives (millions of them) with their ultimately SUBJECTIVE views and decisions.

And no responsibility. If they are wrong you'd never know until you can get a historical perspective.

So will they raise the interest rate or not? Who knows. Whatever is f*cking politically convinient.

But anyone, and I mean ANYONE who has read a book on political economy would never call "economics" science and evidence just shows how bloody wrong in particular economists in the central (reserve) banks are.
.

 

[cantgetright]

@supercow What a long-winded way of saying you don't understand what science is.

 

[esther90]

@cantgetright Science is when you can predict the future with 100% accuracy, the more 100% it is the more sciencer it is.

 

[melissa43]

@supercow You need to go back and read the definition of 'science.'

 

[supercow]

@melissa43 You need to go back and read my post.

My point is that a handful of people make decisions that affect millions most directly and sometimes with devastating consequences - homelessness is rising.

These people are perceived as objective making objective decisions based on objective, verifiable methods, it's in their job description and you pay them.

My point is not whether economics is a science or not.

Talking about not seeing the forest for the trees.

My point is people need to be educated and attention needs to be drawn to the fact how unscientific, subjective and politically motivated the Reserve Bank is.

 

[resjudicata]

@supercow

My point is not whether economics is a science or not.

It's literally what your title says.

 

[melissa43]

@supercow In your title you wrote "It's ridiculous that some people consider economics a "science" you dope.

Then you went on some inane rant showing nfi what the RBA can and can't do.

Then finishing it off again with

But anyone, and I mean ANYONE who has read a book on political economy would never call "economics" science

just to reinforce your point.

 

[nonaffiliated]

@supercow The RBA has specific goals and focus on how to achieve those with limited tools, not to specifically pander to you and your very specific needs.

More importantly, if you are such a genius and you think you can do better because you are special enough to be able to guess knowledge that is not widely available as well as juggle countless amounts of moving variables to find the "one best decision" (for rba's goals, not your own benefit), then try apply for the position xD

Economics is guesswork, especially when there's no historical precedents for many new advancements

 

[rambles17]

@supercow It's a soft science. It's often appropriate to consider the differences between hard and soft sciences.

 

[dewguru]

@rambles17 My profession falls into hard science and I would still avoid these terms because I think it downgrades the work in the "soft sciences". I use social science and physical science normally.

 

[rronald_25]

@supercow We have read your post, but we critiqued it instead of agreeing. You made many flawed assumptions.

 

[oxid]

@supercow What’s your point? Do you have a better solution?

 

[josias]

@oxid You can disagree with how something is down and have very valid points about why it shouldn't be done that way without needed to have a fully formed solution that is better.

 

[dpardue]

@josias Well then they should at least have very valid points about why it shouldn't be done that way shouldn't they.

 

[montrel]

@dpardue Because neoliberal economical philosophy is psychopathic?

 

[wheelgirl]

@montrel what is the philosophy of economical neoliberalism?

 

[montrel]

@oxid All economics is philosophy.

 

[esther90]

@montrel I’m no fan of economics but even though it’s a social science it’s still a science. So philosophy wishes it was economics. Economics actually conducts real world studies using maths and statistics. Philosophy is literally just hypothetical experiments done inside the heads of old men.

 

[montrel]

@esther90 All economics are founded on assumptions about human desire and behaviour, though. The bedrock is always philosophy.

 

[esther90]

@montrel Human desire and behavior can be reliably predicted on the aggregate.