Social science is not Science. The X factor is human involvement at every point. Economics is a construct of humans for humans and has so many assumed variables that any attempt to create "laws" is frustrated by what economists call "externalities," variables like ill-considered non-renewable resources.
Just because a science doesn't involve natural variable doesn't make it not science. I think that something is science when you follow the scientific method.
@@raizox6134 Capital, is a Human social program, constructed by Humans and with no actual Natural backing...... The discussion of Capitalism depends on the belief in a Social System, that can be eliminated without harm to Nature. So the discussion of economics is a Social System that we believe is constant, but we can live without.......
General Equilibrium: supply equals demand Optimal Equilibrium: everyone's profit/utility is maximized Underemployment Equilibrium: too much labor, not enough demand Dynamic Equilibrium: same speed of change for all quantities law of gravity in econ: self interest "rational greed"
The word science has a popular meaning, the problem with the claim that Economics is a science is that this may lead people to believe that economic theories might have the assertivity of a theory in Natural Science, and this is dishonest.
If you are a Gazelle who needs to drink water at the pond, do you do it? You know that there could be a predator there waiting to pull you under. However, the cost of not drinking the water in front of you and continuing is higher than the cost of a possible predator, so you go to drink the water. Economics is a science of decision making.
@@vibrantmatter no is not, economics is not a science in any sense. It tries to use the scientific method and fail on providing good results most of the time. This is not a problem by itself but becomes a bigger problem when people expect good results from it.
@@vibrantmatter You can't measure the risk of using an economic model, and this is also a big problem. For one to properly use economic "science" this person also needs to have lot of experience on not using it to know when is failing before it fails.
What is NDP? How is it that the depreciation of capital goods matters but durable consumer goods does not and economists don't tell us? What has the annual depreciation of automobiles in England been since Sputnik?
Yes, Economics is a kind of science -- though I do not know if it is exactly similar to Physics. Both Physics and Economics can utilize computer science, and I hope that Economists do understand the value of CS like AI. Yes, equilibrium is a concept that hard sciences and economics share. My research on computational Economics will yield a new form of equilibrium -- this will take me about one more year to come up with.
Interesting take. With that statement, what assumptions have you made and are you questioning them? Because I used to believe in what you are saying, but that's before I actually read any of the college material, teaching economics. With some guidance, it became painfully obvious that economics isn't even a social science. And utilizing computer science means absolutely nothing. Your research on computational economics will not yield a new form of equilibrium. It's not that economics, is "not exactly like Physics" - it's that it is not even remotely close to being a science like physics, and I argue that it doesn't even qualify as a social science. I suspect, your research will yield these results; they will explain past events and the system of capitalism, failing completely to even predict 2 years in the future. There is no equilibrium to be had in economics, if there were, unemployment would be permanently solved. Crashes would never happen, inequality would never happen (because after all, through inequalities, markets become unstable, and the demand sink like a rock in water). Also, one thing has to be defined in the models, for economics to become science and that is to take into account *money* and *time* - neither of which, are dealt with in economics. We speak of price, supply, demand, but never money and time. The two most crucial factors of economics in the modern world, are utterly glazed over, and for good reason, every model falls apart when money (not price) and time is introduced. Suddenly the equations become unsolvable. Too many unknowns.
One thing that may have led to this "paradigm" of "idealism divorced of realism (fact-backing)" in Economics is that to be an Economist is a "career identity." The perish or publish dynamic in the military-industrial "arm" we call "academia" has these economists scrambling for fame and fortune rather than focused on solving real problems for real people. I'm writing my economic vision outside of the establishment for this very reason. I will not dip one toe into those torching flames of hubris! They will burn my empire to the ground before the first brick is laid down.
I have great respect for this conversation and the participants within but, Say's Law is the clearest and most sensible economic observation to adhere to, production should be concurrent with reasonable consumption. How do we collectively foster creativity that produces equitable returns? “No one has a right to consume happiness without producing it.” - Helen Keller
As I like to ask capitalists, please give me a date, an exact date, when there wasnt a corporation or rich elites finger pressed down on the scales of this so-called free market?
@nevadataylor Free markets could work if autonomy was a top consumer concern. But by default, markets not motivated to facilitate independence are markets motivated to facilitate dependency, therefore can not be "free". The call for free markets would be more successful if it came from more sympathetic people.
There's nothing wrong that Economics is a soft science. Psychology is also a soft science but look at their field, psychologists tend to help many people because they are pretentious to be considered as hard science. I think the problem is without mathematics as background in economics, the field will die eventually. Some economist try to make it relevant using mathematics but to no avail because human behavior cannot be measured quantatively because we are different from each other. I really feel anxious to those economists who use mathematics as their masks to prove that Economics is above all field. Well, in fact, it will not be as long as there are pretentious economists who use mathematics as a way to get their point. Mathematics has own limits, too and economist should understand that!
Yanis Varoufakis has a lecture about "pluralism in economics", given in Tubingen Germany, in where he goes into great detail about why Economics is not a science and why it should not be considered a science, *at least* not in the sense of a physicist. And even though psychology *could* be considered a "soft" science, it really isn't, as we can study behavior pretty well, especially when we can make predictions and see if our assumptions were right. In economics, those assumptions are not proven by the system itself running it's course, but the assumptions made about for instance capitalism, are then steered by those who have everything to gain from capitalism succeeding, to prove their assumptions. That's not how psychology works however. What I'm trying to get at, is that the assumptions made about capitalism as an economic system for instance, are made in a way to reinforce said assumptions. It's like a snake biting it's own tail.
@@yydd4954 The equilibrium situation is literally what he debunks rather flawlessly though, and it's something that's usually taught in economics. The problem with equilibrium in economics is that it doesn't account for time. It accounts for a pseudo-definition of demand and supply. But if there's no time, there can't be debt, and if there's no debt, we don't have capitalism. Also, another thing, in economics, there's often talk about price etc, but never money. And the problem with economics as a science (and especially neo-liberal capitalist ones, but this is true no matter what lens you decide to view it through) is that money itself is a commodity, something which none of the theories can explain or account for. Equilibrium in physics doesn't ignore the laws of physics. Equilibrium in economics ignores everything, it's actually one of the worst ideas about economics (I've mentioned a few major problems, that can't be explained). Economics isn't a science, it's philosophy and philosophy only. So it boils down to; what world do you *want* to live in - where as in physics, the question is what world do we *actually* live in? And if we're being honest, we would all want to live in a world where a dignified life is possible, health care, roof over our heads, with some spare change to do something fun / enjoy. The problem is though; those with a lot, always want more. That's the decision you have to make for yourself; what world do you want to live in.
Walras wrote in French, so the notion commonly translated as "groping" is actually "tâtonnement". That word has none of the unfortunate associations "groping" possesses in English.
In general, an equilibrium is achieved when the state of stable conditions in which all significant factors remain more or less constant over a period, and there is little or no inherent tendency for change. Some concepts, created by me, show the stable conditions, when the proper AI-based relations are achieved and subsumed, even though it is a case that was traditionally characterized as radical uncertainty. Economic equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. There can be a state of serenity and balance in economic conditions due to the lack of outside forces causing disruption. Any such attempt towards disruption will be caught by my AI-based analysis.
I thought that it was already well established that economics is a social science. It is real science, but not the same type of science as physics or chemistry..
Yeah that is what most people assume when they think of economics. That's not how *economies* work though. Especially when we talk about capitalism this becomes even clearer. In the introductory material at college, and even well into the education, they talk about capitalism, but in the material it is nowhere to be found. Time and money, can't be introduced to the models (and therefore never are), so what capitalism is economics trying to explain? If you really want to understand why economics is not even a social science in that respect, Yanis Varoufakis had a great lecture about pluralism in economics, in Tubingen Germany.
Is the whole idea of 'social science' a silly notion? After all, if economics isn't a science, what then to make of political science, sociology, psychology (with its replication crisis), anthropology, linguistics, decision science etc. etc.? What about nutritional science?
Agree. Human emotion and motivation beyond survival are not nearly as predictable as some economists would like to believe. I love the humanities precisely because there are so many variables and endless opportunities for exploration of what it means to live, to be fulfilled, and to create.
@@sonGOKU-gy7rg That's speaking too highly of religion. For all their faults the social sciences do eventually get rid of bad ideas, albeit too slow for satisfaction. Religions take centuries to do the same.
This class was everything but epistemology and philosophy of science, which should have been, if economics should be argued as science or not, then its epistemic foundings should have been argued, equilibrium its not a concept by which its meant something to be science (natural factical sciences uses this concepts, but that means nothings for their own value as sciences) Quite a shame this, a class of concrete foundings ended uo being a class of aluminium windows by the logic that both of them use to appear in buildings.
That's false. A lot of economists predicted the past crisis. It's politicians who doesn't take them into account because some of the decisions they had to make were unpopular.
equilibrium in econ is absolute BS ofc. having said that i don't see how only a sort of theory of equilibrium makes something a science. is that the case for every other science? i thought science was simply the use of the scientific method, applied to various ideas which eventually which eventually formed into certain groups and categories of scientific thought
14:13 There was a cake on the kitchen table and now there isn't. It must have floated off due to the absence of gravity. And I thought the kids had eaten it.
i dont understand this idea of social science as less valuable sciences, i think the average historian, philosofer, antropoligist is smarter than the average phisicist, they tend to accept old ideas with much more caution and investigate more before making conclusions
I guess it's more about the idea that they're not hard sciences (as a lot of economists like to believe), and therefore you cannot threat them as such.
Because hard science has known, inviolable laws and social sciences do not. The beauty of the humanities is that there are no laws of human behavior beyond the need for survival. Purpose can be self determined and not predictable. Cause and effect are predictable in many areas, but not human relationships. Here we have possibilities and probabilities, but rarely certainties. The beauty (also not a hard scientific term) of life is in this dance of chaos and order.
When reading the word "economics" I hear the works of Mason Gaffney, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson and others of similar ilk. Robert Skidelsky lecture is soooooo same. Careful as we will, careful as we go.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Skidelsky's talks are a guiding light in trlling students how much they need to study the History of Economic Thought.
I love his revelations and comments about Schumpeter , very astute observations.
"He wants to be a Neoclassical economist, but his genius keeps breaking through and he can't do it". Brilliantly funny and easy to watch lectures!
Social science is not Science. The X factor is human involvement at every point. Economics is a construct of humans for humans and has so many assumed variables that any attempt to create "laws" is frustrated by what economists call "externalities," variables like ill-considered non-renewable resources.
Social science is science with too many variables
Just because a science doesn't involve natural variable doesn't make it not science. I think that something is science when you follow the scientific method.
@@pandapotanharahap6916 Having multiple variables doesn't mean that it cannot follow the scientific method.
@@raizox6134 Capital, is a Human social program, constructed by Humans and with no actual Natural backing......
The discussion of Capitalism depends on the belief in a Social System, that can be eliminated without harm to Nature.
So the discussion of economics is a Social System that we believe is constant, but we can live without.......
@codacreator6162 Gustavo Bueno explains it better, what is science?
General Equilibrium: supply equals demand
Optimal Equilibrium: everyone's profit/utility is maximized
Underemployment Equilibrium: too much labor, not enough demand
Dynamic Equilibrium: same speed of change for all quantities
law of gravity in econ: self interest "rational greed"
The word science has a popular meaning, the problem with the claim that Economics is a science is that this may lead people to believe that economic theories might have the assertivity of a theory in Natural Science, and this is dishonest.
If you are a Gazelle who needs to drink water at the pond, do you do it? You know that there could be a predator there waiting to pull you under. However, the cost of not drinking the water in front of you and continuing is higher than the cost of a possible predator, so you go to drink the water. Economics is a science of decision making.
@@vibrantmatter no is not, economics is not a science in any sense. It tries to use the scientific method and fail on providing good results most of the time. This is not a problem by itself but becomes a bigger problem when people expect good results from it.
@@vibrantmatter You can't measure the risk of using an economic model, and this is also a big problem. For one to properly use economic "science" this person also needs to have lot of experience on not using it to know when is failing before it fails.
Zd,,i
What is NDP?
How is it that the depreciation of capital goods matters but durable consumer goods does not and economists don't tell us?
What has the annual depreciation of automobiles in England been since Sputnik?
9:05 is when the entire conversation becomes an abstract wank tangent. You know, economics.
What would the truth be in economics then if its not fully predictable?
Yes, Economics is a kind of science -- though I do not know if it is exactly similar to Physics. Both Physics and Economics can utilize computer science, and I hope that Economists do understand the value of CS like AI. Yes, equilibrium is a concept that hard sciences and economics share. My research on computational Economics will yield a new form of equilibrium -- this will take me about one more year to come up with.
upload some of ur work on youtube! do u have any free content of your own somewhere?
@@luisesparza1458 After I publish in a journal, then I will upload.
@@luisesparza1458 I will make it public when it gets published. That will take one more year. Thanks for your interest.
Seems interesting. Hope to hear more from your job
Interesting take. With that statement, what assumptions have you made and are you questioning them? Because I used to believe in what you are saying, but that's before I actually read any of the college material, teaching economics. With some guidance, it became painfully obvious that economics isn't even a social science. And utilizing computer science means absolutely nothing. Your research on computational economics will not yield a new form of equilibrium. It's not that economics, is "not exactly like Physics" - it's that it is not even remotely close to being a science like physics, and I argue that it doesn't even qualify as a social science.
I suspect, your research will yield these results; they will explain past events and the system of capitalism, failing completely to even predict 2 years in the future. There is no equilibrium to be had in economics, if there were, unemployment would be permanently solved. Crashes would never happen, inequality would never happen (because after all, through inequalities, markets become unstable, and the demand sink like a rock in water). Also, one thing has to be defined in the models, for economics to become science and that is to take into account *money* and *time* - neither of which, are dealt with in economics. We speak of price, supply, demand, but never money and time. The two most crucial factors of economics in the modern world, are utterly glazed over, and for good reason, every model falls apart when money (not price) and time is introduced. Suddenly the equations become unsolvable. Too many unknowns.
Come on man just say no or yes
???
No.
One thing that may have led to this "paradigm" of "idealism divorced of realism (fact-backing)" in Economics is that to be an Economist is a "career identity." The perish or publish dynamic in the military-industrial "arm" we call "academia" has these economists scrambling for fame and fortune rather than focused on solving real problems for real people. I'm writing my economic vision outside of the establishment for this very reason. I will not dip one toe into those torching flames of hubris! They will burn my empire to the ground before the first brick is laid down.
If it's morality that determines the market's virtue, are all free markets free?
Since morality does not determine the market's value...that is what free markets are free of.
I have great respect for this conversation and the participants within but, Say's Law is the clearest and most sensible economic observation to adhere to, production should be concurrent with reasonable consumption.
How do we collectively foster creativity that produces equitable returns?
“No one has a right to consume happiness without producing it.” - Helen Keller
As I like to ask capitalists, please give me a date, an exact date, when there wasnt a corporation or rich elites finger pressed down on the scales of this so-called free market?
@nevadataylor Free markets could work if autonomy was a top consumer concern. But by default, markets not motivated to facilitate independence are markets motivated to facilitate dependency, therefore can not be "free". The call for free markets would be more successful if it came from more sympathetic people.
I hope that eventually Economists will take note of my work -- though I will probably have to publish most of my work in non-Economic journals.
What work exactly? Can you share it?
@@harshithsubramaniam5924 I will publish the work soon -- then I can share.
@@suchitraabel4298 sure
@@suchitraabel4298 Is it published?
That of course depends; all modern economics are religions and all ‘social sciences’ in general are religions.
Science is testable, demonstrable, and evidence based.
Economics is belief-based financial religion.
There's nothing wrong that Economics is a soft science. Psychology is also a soft science but look at their field, psychologists tend to help many people because they are pretentious to be considered as hard science. I think the problem is without mathematics as background in economics, the field will die eventually. Some economist try to make it relevant using mathematics but to no avail because human behavior cannot be measured quantatively because we are different from each other. I really feel anxious to those economists who use mathematics as their masks to prove that Economics is above all field. Well, in fact, it will not be as long as there are pretentious economists who use mathematics as a way to get their point. Mathematics has own limits, too and economist should understand that!
Yanis Varoufakis has a lecture about "pluralism in economics", given in Tubingen Germany, in where he goes into great detail about why Economics is not a science and why it should not be considered a science, *at least* not in the sense of a physicist. And even though psychology *could* be considered a "soft" science, it really isn't, as we can study behavior pretty well, especially when we can make predictions and see if our assumptions were right. In economics, those assumptions are not proven by the system itself running it's course, but the assumptions made about for instance capitalism, are then steered by those who have everything to gain from capitalism succeeding, to prove their assumptions. That's not how psychology works however.
What I'm trying to get at, is that the assumptions made about capitalism as an economic system for instance, are made in a way to reinforce said assumptions. It's like a snake biting it's own tail.
@@simonfarre4907 it's not about assumption only
The formulas in equilibrium situation is universal actually. That's where economics is a science
@@yydd4954 The equilibrium situation is literally what he debunks rather flawlessly though, and it's something that's usually taught in economics. The problem with equilibrium in economics is that it doesn't account for time. It accounts for a pseudo-definition of demand and supply. But if there's no time, there can't be debt, and if there's no debt, we don't have capitalism.
Also, another thing, in economics, there's often talk about price etc, but never money. And the problem with economics as a science (and especially neo-liberal capitalist ones, but this is true no matter what lens you decide to view it through) is that money itself is a commodity, something which none of the theories can explain or account for.
Equilibrium in physics doesn't ignore the laws of physics. Equilibrium in economics ignores everything, it's actually one of the worst ideas about economics (I've mentioned a few major problems, that can't be explained). Economics isn't a science, it's philosophy and philosophy only. So it boils down to; what world do you *want* to live in - where as in physics, the question is what world do we *actually* live in? And if we're being honest, we would all want to live in a world where a dignified life is possible, health care, roof over our heads, with some spare change to do something fun / enjoy. The problem is though; those with a lot, always want more. That's the decision you have to make for yourself; what world do you want to live in.
Science is testable, demonstrable, and evidence based.
Economics is belief-based financial religion.
Will be the transcription avaliable someday?
I hope that it will first be available in a journal.
Walras wrote in French, so the notion commonly translated as "groping" is actually "tâtonnement". That word has none of the unfortunate associations "groping" possesses in English.
Why is this video shot so pretentiously?
In general, an equilibrium is achieved when the state of
stable conditions in which all significant factors remain more or less constant over a period, and
there is little or no inherent tendency for change. Some concepts, created by
me, show the stable conditions, when the proper AI-based relations are achieved and subsumed,
even though it is a case that was traditionally characterized as radical uncertainty. Economic
equilibrium is a condition or state in which economic forces are balanced. There can be a state of serenity and
balance in economic conditions due to the lack of outside forces causing disruption. Any such
attempt towards disruption will be caught by my AI-based analysis.
I thought that it was already well established that economics is a social science. It is real science, but not the same type of science as physics or chemistry..
Yeah that is what most people assume when they think of economics. That's not how *economies* work though. Especially when we talk about capitalism this becomes even clearer. In the introductory material at college, and even well into the education, they talk about capitalism, but in the material it is nowhere to be found. Time and money, can't be introduced to the models (and therefore never are), so what capitalism is economics trying to explain? If you really want to understand why economics is not even a social science in that respect, Yanis Varoufakis had a great lecture about pluralism in economics, in Tubingen Germany.
Economics is both an art and science
Obviously it's not a science like physics and chemistry because it has lot characteristics of social science too.
Is the whole idea of 'social science' a silly notion? After all, if economics isn't a science, what then to make of political science, sociology, psychology (with its replication crisis), anthropology, linguistics, decision science etc. etc.? What about nutritional science?
Agree. Human emotion and motivation beyond survival are not nearly as predictable as some economists would like to believe. I love the humanities precisely because there are so many variables and endless opportunities for exploration of what it means to live, to be fulfilled, and to create.
U could see these all as religions,
how they operate is similar to the way the religion do
@@sonGOKU-gy7rg That's speaking too highly of religion. For all their faults the social sciences do eventually get rid of bad ideas, albeit too slow for satisfaction. Religions take centuries to do the same.
You do realise other disciplines, including the 'hard science' disciplines, face replication crisis right?
This class was everything but epistemology and philosophy of science, which should have been, if economics should be argued as science or not, then its epistemic foundings should have been argued, equilibrium its not a concept by which its meant something to be science (natural factical sciences uses this concepts, but that means nothings for their own value as sciences) Quite a shame this, a class of concrete foundings ended uo being a class of aluminium windows by the logic that both of them use to appear in buildings.
Wow
Economist's predictions have proven to be mostly worthless.
That's false. A lot of economists predicted the past crisis. It's politicians who doesn't take them into account because some of the decisions they had to make were unpopular.
That's why the goal of economists isn't to make predictions.
Nailed it!
@@donthasselthehoff5753 Yes it is. If not, why have it?
equilibrium in econ is absolute BS ofc. having said that i don't see how only a sort of theory of equilibrium makes something a science. is that the case for every other science? i thought science was simply the use of the scientific method, applied to various ideas which eventually which eventually formed into certain groups and categories of scientific thought
14:13 There was a cake on the kitchen table and now there isn't. It must have floated off due to the absence of gravity.
And I thought the kids had eaten it.
i dont understand this idea of social science as less valuable sciences, i think the average historian, philosofer, antropoligist is smarter than the average phisicist, they tend to accept old ideas with much more caution and investigate more before making conclusions
I guess it's more about the idea that they're not hard sciences (as a lot of economists like to believe), and therefore you cannot threat them as such.
Because hard science has known, inviolable laws and social sciences do not. The beauty of the humanities is that there are no laws of human behavior beyond the need for survival. Purpose can be self determined and not predictable. Cause and effect are predictable in many areas, but not human relationships. Here we have possibilities and probabilities, but rarely certainties. The beauty (also not a hard scientific term) of life is in this dance of chaos and order.
When reading the word "economics" I hear the works of Mason Gaffney, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson and others of similar ilk. Robert Skidelsky lecture is soooooo same.
Careful as we will, careful as we go.
No its not.
Why? Because your communist friends told you so?
@@donthasselthehoff5753 no . Because it is self evident. Unless you are ‘economist’ or moron like you. Lmao.
...economics is the ideology of social engineering...a Clan or a Tribe does not deal in such nonsense...
Ask yourself is God a Science?
... and unfortunately many people would answer yes to that question too!
Quite a straw man