วีดีโอ

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account.” - F A Hayek

This makes you realize the anti-math guys are good with words, their arguments and rhetoric are way more convinving that the others.

I believe one has to understand a very particular line of thought in order to understand the economic problems, current, past and up and coming, and it is this.... The best countries in terms of means, all types and forms of means, will spend the best of such means, in order to educate the best and the best of the best. After concluding such a transaction. Such extremely well off places will turn around and say.... Here is artificial intelligence, it thinks and as a consequence you are. More to it, will use some of the best within their current stock to explain such magnificence and show it's "benefits". There has never been any problem with any software or hardware. The best of, is used by anyone, the worst of are barley known by anyone. This means among many other things...... Either the education system has reached it's limits, or the education system is anything but a education system. (A clue pro and against relies on observing lectures after lectures, talks, and debates etc etc concluded solely on questions, in worst cases not even answers, and none of such events not stated, presented and worst recognised as interviews.) If anyone, and anyone often does point to game theory, saying..... (You don't understand game theory.) Then that anyone anyone does not understand questions and as a consequence does not understand interviews. Simply because despite the dogmatic tightly stretched held belief by now, a question, any questions, have only one structure in being, that is to find out that which can never be known, which means there is no amount or possibility of either learning or teaching while utilising questions, none whatsoever, and Socrates should not be attributed with the opposite, which seems to be the origins of the dogma. If one thinks and believes the opposite, such anyone is making stuff up with questions, the universe allows for such use, deploying time as a consequence. There is a very hypothetical yet very poignant scenario which shows in full what the structure of any artificial intelligence is, and it is this.... Assume one wants to know all the names of Alla, under such assumption one would think, the best place to find out, is any Muslim, under such assumption one could tell one take a Muslim and water board them, and to a very high probability in doing so the Muslim will tell you all the names of Alla. The problem is this, the Muslim under such circumstantial constraints, will, and can only tell you all the names of water boarding no matter what, even if the Muslim actually knows all the names of Alla. That is the flaw of artificial intelligence, it can only make replicas at best of circumstantial constraints. The problem of, pro, against and abstention polling at the end of such debates can be solved better this way. Who is against say .... you. Who is pro say.....you to. Who is abstaining say......u both.

If you can do advanced MAth I think you can understand history

Begin to get economic materials into classrooms beginning in kindergarten. Teach marketing, making change, effect of interest, taxes, (what and why). Build a foundation of knowledge, ground up.

Very informative fight

Am I the only one who is the least bit perturbed by the lack of subtitle availability? I feel like although I found the debate interesting and insightful I would have gotten a lot more out of it if I had access to some kind of tool to help me follow along with what they were saying, be it subtitling or even a transcript. There is no education without access.

horrible english with mouth slurping

Late Ronald McKinnon led a team of researchers into the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and relied on history to explain it after gathering numerical data.

It's hard to believe anyone could take Prof Caselli seriously given his astonishingly shallow and lazy contribution here.

Economics is the study of exploiting land and people for max resources.

There is a need for both. It is just that math is so much more elite, and that is what needs to even out a bit. Thinking historically, culturally, and philosophically needs greater respect and value because that wisdom leads to better application of the math and science. The person complaining about conviction should realize that everything done in the social arena required convincing someone to do it. That is true of the data driven business decisions or the most communal of school board meetings, it all requires conviction to make it happen.

But if we do it that way and Econ becomes a Memory game like history and biology, how are we going to keep out the plebs and the slobs? We may even have to admit that it's not a real science!

I didn't watch much yet, but I already think he's brilliant!

Economics is the quantitative theory of scarcity. His intellectual laziness to learn math doesn't change that. ;-)

0:00 Robert Skidelsky 13:40 Francesco Caselli 29:00 Ha-Joon Chang 46:43 Steve Pisckhe

Not too much maths, but too much econometrics. Many researchers just find two variables and regress them, this is the best way for quick publications,

40:55 Singapore role of state in housing and society.

I love all of the non-economists saying that there is not enough history in economics.

Prof. Skidelsky made a very good observation at the end: the belief that economic systems can be explained e predicted by simple mecanistic models is wrong.

43:50 From 1991 to 2001 there was an excess death (base 1991) in Russia, for the adult population, estimated between 2.5 and 3 million. The population or Rome, Italy, is currently around 2.8 million people. To be fair, we can't attribute all that excess deat to economists - only a large majority.

The second professor is really lame ... so many simple logic mistakes. Isn't the debate "too much maths, too litle history"? I studied electric engineering and the main model we use is Circuit Theory. Circuit Theory has 5 elements that do not exist in reality but that allows us to represent real elements as close to reality as we want. A resistor, for instance, can be modelled with the ideal resistor, with the ideal resistor in series with an ideal inductor or with an additional ideal capacitor in parallel with the series ideal resistor and inductor. The choice of modelling depends on the real device being used AND the application. Economists, very often, take out their hats the idea that a real resistor should be always modelled in a certain way and then they follow with the math. Math knows nothing of physics and it will deliver results that are only valid if the modelling is correct. What is really lacking in science - and even in economics - is philosophy.

To me, I find it funny that at the bottom of it all they are trying to predict the future. Learn history to predict the future vs learn math to "definitely" predict the future. And over and over they are proved wrong.

1:14:02 because some economist are mathematicians based upon focus, pure math, applied math or other

Ha-Joon Chang just melted my face 😮

Maybe we need more math and even more history.

I would add: Too little philosophy. In particular, too little understanding of axiology -- ethics, harmony, and virtue (vis purely abstract beauty and aesthetics). From this it follows -- too little mindfulness of vital values and virtues -- fairness, goodness, kindness, justice, ecuanimity, sensitivity, decency, nobility... We could go deeper: Insufficient (if not null) understanding of basic biology, ecology, and other vital domains -- and their corresponding disciplines and arts (philosophy of~, history of~, art of~ ... and so on).

28:00 legend

Too little philosophy* I'd argue. History is not a good way to come to truth, because history is written by the victors. Philosophy requires persistent doubt. History aims to remove all doubt. It is in the persistent doubt that we remain vigilant of the claims of any organisation aims for utopia or some ideal of mathematical efficiency in a world of uncertainty.

It's also worth pointing out Steve Keen's critique that the economic field uses a level of math that it's completely inadequate to model the complexity of the subject. You need to be able to model complex systems with the right tools: non equilibrium systems, topographic analysis, turbulance , etc.

50:00

1:22:24 Red Herring and Ad Hominem.

The reality is the Maths exposes fantasy and wishful thinking which so called economists who are just pushing a political agenda.

They don't understand anything

You can prove anything you want with math and still be dead wrong because your model / initial assumptions are completely divorced from reality.

Great talk, but I wouldnt call an introduction to statistics and a course on convex optimization "too much maths".

The question on epistemology was telling, and similar to my experiences with economists. They love using maths to add 'complexity' to their analyses, but shy away from epistemological complexity because it's too hard, or would take too long ("we could spend hours and hours discussing all the things that are wrong with the data... I don't have the patience" - well, that's not really an answer).

eh, where the sciance?

the more complex the technological, consumeristic, trade relations, etc. adds to the complexity of an economy, the more we need BOTH math and history, not to mention psychology, anthropology, philosophy, ecology, other hard sciences, and sociology to understand its mechanism AND to solve its problems. why is this not blatantly obvious? because economists are careerists with egos just like lawyers, doctors, officials, professors...and this CAREERISM (left brain reductionist fragmented thinking as well) has trumped "knowledge for the greater good", and this is why I write my own economic vision OUTSIDE of academia and career....I do it for the love of economics and the concern for its usefulness to helping humankind and mother earth

The host of show needs to let these professors debate, and control the debates, not be dismissive.

Majestic!

if wages go up people choose leisure- why are they saying this as if its a negative. Any other field would view this as a quality of life improvement.

Excellent analysis sir thanks

I have a feeling that no economist has sofar property understood how economies work and why change.

6 years oldWhy men are so lonely - and how to make new friends - Apple News Spotlight apple.news/AOhYdzdsHTJbn7eYFy

I am an econs student and i have been reading history and political science as a side hobby for yeaes now, i also hold a Logistics diploma and worked in hospitality for nearly 4years, so i dont have much of a say in this debate What i can say is that if one takes Economics for Financial purposes or Math for Data Science purposes, one spoils a genuinely good social science course. The actual study of Econonics comes with true appreciation of History, Geograohy, Political Science, Religon, Logistics and so many other subjects. History alone does not solely assist with the study of Econonics, Geography and Politics tend to explain Economics just as efficiently as History, Logistics is the foundation of Supply and Demand of Theory and Religon is the foundation of European History and modern Political thought. Economics will always be the study of things that dosent seem to make sense unless one is well versed in other subjects 🙃 Lastly, Singapore Corruption is low 🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭 I think corruption is either covered up properly on blatantly obvious, Singapore just keeps it in lock and key From a Singaporean 🙃

Ha Joon Chang is one of the greatest minds on the planet right now

Economics suffers badly from the fact that it is a science that lacks the protection from the prestige gained from aging, as is the case with physics which results from repeating experimentation every time which emphises the foundations of that science in different, varied, and surprising ways. And all reinforce that science. The author Walid Ahmed Kamal Al-Hababi, in his book "The Economic Risk Theory" (the Islamic Macroeconomic System), deals with achieving maximum benefit, detailing the new economic system, which is called the "risk" system in which wealth is distributed to everyone, as it is a stable and more efficient system than the system of free market. In his book "The Theory of Economic Risk" (The Islamic Macroeconomic System), the author believes that the basic idea of ​​this book is to clarify the idea of ​​how to use the principle of time preference in imposing taxes, in order to motivate everyone to invest and raise productivity through tax. He also touched on the state's duties regarding its implementation and the extent of its participation in the market accurately. The author spoke of the zakat banks as the state budget, while the state budget remains the most controversial point among policy makers in countries. At the same time, the writer believes that while economic writings are scarce from a total point of view, there is no writer who spoke about a holistic Islamic economy as a previous system; So this is the only writing, up to the moment. You cannot change a system by fighting the existing truth, as Muslim economists always do, but to change something, you must create a model that makes the current system an outdated system. furthermore If we know that this system achieves the highest rate of spending in a country without need for other economic resources - without taxes or anything else - thus we can see that we are facing unique writings. Whereas, it lays out clear features for the Islamic economy that distinguish it completely from the socialist and capitalist economies, and not a fabrication to be similar to either of them. And he affirms that with this system, other systems will not be able to catch up with our economic progress, no matter what efforts are made, except to implement it. On the other hand, he believes that we will not be able to catch up with the West economically with the current systems, no matter what we try. Finally, the author asserts, that economics is the only thing that clarifies the purpose of Islamic customs and rituals apart from their devotional meaning in human life. So that it can be proven without doubt that it is indispensable for a person to perform it such as Hajj, Zakat, prayer ... etc. He also confirms that all of this is found in the book (The Theory of Economic Risk) in this book issued by the House of “Yemeni Books” for printing, publishing and distribution within 305 pages and distributed in three main chapters, that this Islamic macroeconomic system is; He is the one who will bring us the maximum benefit يعاني علمُ الاقتصادِ بشدةٍ من أنه العلمُ الذي يفتقدُ إلى الحمايةِ التي تُؤمنها الهَيبة المكتسبة من تقادم العمر، كما هو الحال مع علمِ الفيزياءِ الناتج عن ترسيخ التجربة المتكررة في كلِ مرة للأسس بطرقٍ مختلفةٍ، ومتنوعةٍ، و مدهشةٍ. وجميعها تعززُ مكانة ذلك العلمِ. وتناول المؤلف وليد أحمد كمال الحبابي، في كتابه" نظرية المخاطرة الاقتصادية" (النظام الاقتصادي الكلي الإسلامي) تحقيق المنفعة القصوى، إيراد تفاصيل النظام الاقتصادي الجديد ، والذي يسمى نظام "المخاطرة" والذي تتوزع فيه الثروة على الجميع ، باعتباره نظاماً مستقراً أكثر كفاءة من نظام السوق الحر. ويرى المؤلف في كتابه" نظرية المخاطرة الاقتصادية" (النظام الاقتصادي الكلي الإسلامي) تحقيق المنفعة القصوى، أن الفكرة الأساسية لهذا الكتاب تكمنْ في توضيح فكرة كيفية استخدام مبدأ التفضيل الزمني في فرض الضريبة، وذلك لتحفيز الجميع على الاستثمار ورفع الانتاجية من خلال الضريبة. كما تطرق الى واجبات الدولة بخصوص تطبيقه ومدى اشتراكها في الأسواق بدقه . وتحدث المؤلف عن أن مصارف الزكاة تعتبر هي موازنة الدولة، فيما تظل موازنة الدولة هي النقطة الاكثر جدلا بين صانعي السياسات في البلدان. وفي الوقت نفسه يرى الكاتب أنه فيما تندر الكتاباتُ الاقتصاديةِ من ناحيةٍ كلية، ولا يوجد كاتبٌ تحدث عن اقتصادٍ إسلامي كلي كنظام سابقًا؛ وبالتالي فهذه هي الكتابة الوحيدة، حتى اللحظة. ويضيف لا يمكنك تغيير نظام بمحاربة الحقيقة القائمة، كما يفعل ذلك الاقتصاديون المسلمون دوما ، ولكن لتغيير شيءٍ، يجب عليك وضع نموذج يجعل النظام الحالي نظام عفا عليه الزمان؛ فإذا علمنا أن هذا النظام يحقق أعلا معدل إنفاق في دولة بلا موارد اقتصادية_ دون اللجوء إلى ضرائبٍ، أو غيرها_ فحينها يمكن أن نرى أننا أمام كتاباتٍ فريدةٍ من نوعها؛ حيثُ أنها تضع للاقتصاد الإسلامي ملامحًا واضحةً تميزهُ تمامًا عن الاقتصادين الاشتراكين و الرأسمالين، وليس تلفيقًا ليشابه أحدهما. ويؤكد أنه بهذا النظام لنْ تتمكن الأنظمةُ الأخرى من اللحاقِ بتقدمنا الاقتصادي مهما بذلت من جهود سوى تطبيقه. وعلى الجانب الآخر يرى أننا لن نتمكن نحنُ من اللحاق بركب الغرب اقتصاديًا بالنظم الحالية مهما حاولنا. وأخيرًا يجزم المؤلف، إن الاقتصاد هو الشيء الوحيد الذي يوضح الغرض من العاداتِ والعباداتِ الإسلامية بعيدًا عن معناها التعبدي في حياة الإنسان؛ بحيث يثبت بما لا يدع للشكِ أنه لاغنى للإنسان عن القيام بها من حج، وزكاة، وصلاة... الخ. كما يؤكد أن كل ذلك نجدهُ في كتاب ( نظريةُ المخاطرةِ الاقتصاديةِ) في هذا الكتاب الصادر عن دار "الكتب اليمنية" للطباعة والنشر والتوزيع ضمن 305 صفحة وموزع على ثلاثة أبواب رئيسية ، أن هذا النظام الاقتصادي الكلي الإسلامي؛ هو الذي سيحققُ لنا المنفعة القصوى.. .. ,,لتنزيل نسخة مجانية من الكتاب www.mediafire.com/file/tvpyra7ojgvocbc/الاقتصاد+الكلي+الاسلامي.pdf/file لمشاهدة لقاء مع المؤلف حول موضوع الكتاب يرجى زيارة الرابط التالي th-cam.com/video/GnFWgDlzWt0/w-d-xo.html ارجوا ان يتم وضعه كمادة تدرس في المنهج الدراسي لطلبة الاقتصاد في الفصل القادم وشكرا.. .. .. ... Thanks alot ..... .. ....

Nope. I learned working for corporate that bean counters drain the life out of an employment unit. Principles over beans.

With all due respect, Chris Snowdon and Steward Lansley are not fit for comparison. While Stewart bases his ideas on data, Chris only uses ideological assumptions, and when he refers to data, it is often irrelevant. I don't want to seem as an anti-rich person (I would love becoming rich myself, lol), but something tells me that Chris Snowdon is a very rich man who doesn't know much about the experiences of poor people around the globe (or even in his country, UK), as is quite content with sacrificing the well-being of millions of individuals for the sake of promoting the ideology of the ''eternally growing'' free market.