Comment on It's barely a science.
nednobbins@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Economists’ math is as good as anyone else’.
The main problem is that economies are incredibly chaotic systems and all the math that humans can actually read described them poorly.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 1 week ago
The main problem is that the math they do is often based on assumptions that have repeatedly been disproven but are still treated like gospel.
If you assume 2+2=5 you can follow up with as much correct math as you like, your results will always be shit.
nednobbins@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Sort of. They won’t say that 2+2=5. The errors are in the isomorphism they claim and the empirical assumptions they make.
Two of my favorites:
Almost all of economics assumes normal distributions. We have good reason to believe that almost no economic variables are normally distributed. That means we routinely underestimate tail risk. We do it anyway because that’s the only way we can get the math to work.
Almost all of modern economics assumes utility functions with transitive preferences. Testing shows that even the economists who published those theories don’t have transit preferences.
droans@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Sounds like you’re complaining more about politicians and pundits than actual economists.
It’s like saying you don’t trust geologists because they assume that the world is 4,000 years old. They don’t - just some idiots in charge do.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 1 week ago
There’s plenty of “actual” economists like that, and unfortunately some of them are among the generally most listened to, they lead prominent institutes and advise my home country’s government.
counterfactual@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
If they make those assumptions, they are not economists, they are politicians. Learning to distinguish the difference is the same skillset boomers need to pick up on in relation to real images and AI generation… Clearly you lack in that department.