"Too much Maths, too little History: The problem of Economics"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ธ.ค. 2015
- This is a recording of the debate hosted by the LSE Economic History Department, in collaboration with the LSESU Economic History Society and the LSESU Economics Society.
lsesueconomichistory.co.uk/
lsesueconomicssociety.com/
Speakers:
Proposition Team - Lord Robert Skidelsky & Dr. Ha-Joon Chang
Opposition Team - Prof. Steve Pisckhe & Prof. Francesco Caselli
Chair - Professor James Foreman-Peck
The LSE is currently the only institution to have a separate EH department. We want to encourage students and academics alike to rethink the methodologies used to explain how our world works.
Do we use the theoretical and econometrical method to create models with assumptions to distil the complexities of human nature and produce measurable results? Or do we use the historical process of considering all factors to provide a more holistic explanation? More importantly, which method should be adopted to better understand increasingly complex economic phenomena in the future?
We are striving to provide our students breadth that exceeds their current theoretical studies. Hence, whilst we recognise the importance of economic history in allowing us to become closer to the truth and produce more intricate portrayal of events, the significance of models and mathematics remains to be emphasised.
Indeed, we wish to have this controversially named debate in order to both highlight the tension between the two disciplines and to produce a more nuanced overview in defence of the future of Economics.
"The awareness of the past should make discipline less arrogant and more useful" Beautifully said!
When the physicists at Santa Fe Institute were developing complexity theory, they invited some economists to offer their input. The physicists were impressed with the economists' mathematical sophistication, but they also observed that they were very ideological and divorced from empiricism when compared to the approach that physicists were accustomed to.
The "assumptions" of neoclassical models they teach in undergrad all predicate normative attitudes.
@@thomashubbard288 that is largely the burden of the individual professor and faculty.
Do you have a source for this?
Source link please
@@thomashubbard288 no they don't
"How would studying history compensate for getting money" - how typical of a finance student
Economics is not about money , thats the stand point any economist realises , Its a mandate towards achieving the epitone of human endeavour through maximum utilisation of its resources
@@vibhuvikramaditya4576 if you want to study Money there is financial only careers, and business careers. but in my opinion these can be substituted by computers.
@@vibhuvikramaditya4576 Economics is about making the most amount of money for the rich, this is why Milton Friedman called Chile a success even though his policies led to 44% of the people living under the poverty line in 1985 and Chile became one of the most unequal countries on the planet, but hey, the GDP was going up so it a "success".
Fast forward to 2019 and one of the biggest mass protests ever over the Neoliberal failed regime.
@@1997lordofdoom You are under ideological possession mate, to top that its obvious you aren't a student of economics, SO WE CANT A DISCOURSE OF WHY ECONOMICS IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID, BECAUSE IN THE END , YOU WON'T BUDGE NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT STUDYING ECONOMICS, AND ARE NOT AWARE OF THE LOGICAL ARGUMEMTATIVE FRAME-WORK THAT I WOULD VENTURE OUT FOR AN EXTRAPOLATION OF MY WORLD VIEW, Your usage of the word as neo-liberal are a testament to my proposition, WE DONT USE WORD LIKE NEOLIBERAL , WE HAVE THEORY AND EMPERICAL EVIDENCE TO WHAT IS SUGGESTED AS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, ECONOMICS STUDIES PARTICIANTS IN AN ECONOMY, BASED IN A SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, THUS MANY OF TIMES, WE GET CONFLICTING VIEWS ON A NUMBER OF THINGS, IF NEO-LIBERAL MEANS FREE TRADE TO YOU WE HAVE PLEANTY OF EVIDENCE SUCH SOUTH KOREA, SINGAPORE AND INDIA, HOW DECENTRALIZATION AND FREE TRADE LEAD TO ECONOMIC MIRACLES IN ALL OF THEM, THE ROLE OF ECONOMICS IS TO REMAIN OBJECTIVE, WE DONT STUDY IDEOLOGY, WE DONT BELIEVE IN IDEOLOGIES, WE ARE IN SOLE PURSUIT OF TRUTH, THUS IT HAS BEEN FOUND A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT MOST ECONOMISTS HAVE CHANGED THEIR MINDS ON SOME OR OTHER ECONOMIC PHENOMENOM OVER THE YEARS WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED WITH LOGICAL ARUGMETNS AND EVIDENCE FOR IT
@@1997lordofdoom economics about making money for the rich? Bro, shut up and go read a book.
Medicine and engineering wouldn't have made much progress without studying corpses and crashes. Economics needs to do the same.
I think we are accumulating quite a bit of crash data. We'll probably have to see for another 20 years. In the end, we probably don't want crashes.
useless comment
avor I agree.
4:35 "The role of history is that of a reality check." Exactly! Over the years, I've become increasingly disenchanted with theory. I'm sick of hearing what SHOULD be, or what WOULD be if only, . . . I want to know whether socio-political theories like socialism, or economic theories like Keynesianism or Classical Economics, or even the predictions of the Austrian school, actually work as claimed.
Pretty sure the Austrians are doing well for some time now.
the pet rock perfect example of the creation of demand for a given supply now if peace sells any demand also a rare disease creates a demand for a specialty drug for only a handful hoping for more victims and more demand this is where economics is being misused in that healthcare costs are not in administrated costs but in research in otherwords of flesh and bone oh yea lots of blood a small if not deadend demand that has been suppied even against political stance death metal should have died by now it yet lives still will never be a money maker like rap and country pop but suppies a very small demand because death is certain life is not oh yea taxes too
th-cam.com/video/V-RlmbIzdA4/w-d-xo.html
@@VincentFink it's not doing well, it's doing well at fooling people into believing it's true.
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).
Maths is important for theory, which is useful for figuring out how to make the best of the bad situation you've got, but unfortunately it's also useful as a means of propaganda for explaining why problems we face are technical, ignoring the majority of consequential wealth transfer which does not take place in an economy, but rather through use of deception and force... eg, using economics to explain the 07-08 crash will mislead as systemic fraud isn't an economics issue, it's a problem of corruption and lack of law enforcement. Physics works because the universe enforces its laws and doesn't accept bribes to create loopholes or look the other way. When 90% of mortgages are fraudulent, 90% of the data regarding them is corrupt, there's no longer any point plugging that data into a model.
Excellent explaination!!
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.
The reply to the question at 1:12:09 is simply superb.
thank you so much for the presentation. so refreshing.
Econ impressives non-economists when its propositions are delivered as formulae. Then they give you money. That's why it succeeds.
0:00 Robert Skidelsky
13:40 Francesco Caselli
29:00 Ha-Joon Chang
46:43 Steve Pisckhe
"Physics envy." So true. Being a huge nerd in the areas of politics and history, the transparently bullshit denial of economics' inherently political and social nature has always irked me. Idk how many times I've read something like "[famous economist]'s ideological disposition might've been awful but I *really* admire their subtle work in econometrics so all and all he was a great economist." Fuck that. The airy and (largely) useless mathematics obsession is fine, just don't pretend it alone gives anyone any insight into the complex construct we call 'the economy.'
Let me put it in a different way. Physics also suffered from this too much "math". Several books are written in criticism of it. "Lost in Beauty" is a title of one. Math seem to give people a simple world of either right or wrong. They are all wrong. Mathematics are not about the calculations and results. It is about the questionings, thinkings and inferings of those calculations. Many economists only did the inferring.
exactly! I study econ when I was a student in NY, fucking NY, which I thought supposed to be down to earth when it comes to econ and finance, but I think it is not math, it is actually statistics. Boy, statistics is subject of scam!. the whole idea of p value and t value, if u took that idea to a real mathematician, or even a math college student, he will tell u thats basically bull shit! logical fallacies. Meanwhile, econ world took that as if they got some gold to prove their hypo.
Calling mathematics, the single most useful tool in economics, to be a "useless obsession" is absurd though it's role is certainly overextended at the moment.
You should read Marx lol, I think you’d appreciate it
@@Account.for.Comment Generally speaking that's not true. A theory has to be proven either experimentally or observationally for the physics community to accept it as a universal law. This is why Stephen Hawking never got the Nobel prize and string theory remains a hypothesis. Equations in physics are nigh infallible unless there's something wrong with the theory, whereas in economics you get models that contains a bunch of wrong assumptions and doesn't reflect anything on the real world. This is why economists can't predict the 2008 financial crisis while engineers can build bridges that don't collapse and GPS that are so reliable.
In Iran we study a lot of math and a lot of history. Indeed all institutionalist schools of economics study math, history, history of economic thoughts, economic systems and etc.. a lot. because of the nature of the idea that u should know about the past to determine around the future. Professor Derakhshan, an ex-professor of LSE teaches such stuff in Iran now. And he is not alone, or the instituter.
very powerful opening statement
Absolutely brilliant!!!!
Excellent analysis sir thanks
I think mathematical modeling is important, but we need history to as this guy said to get a reality check in the models themselves.
We need both.
And philosophy. And common sense. And love.
In other words: we have been participating in the production of tremendous abundance ( forget how badly distributed for now) and we have no idea how it really happened. That's encouraging!!!!!...
On evidence and not on who has the strongest convictions. The lady made her strong point!👍
so interesting.. I never thought about math playing such a fundamental role. While math is perfect, harmonious and beautiful, the reality of the market supply and demand is not. I like to mark this for later viewing, but the "watch later" is missing.
A final comment. Some years ago I came across an introductory text on economics written (over several editions) in 1955 by Professor Harry Gunnison Brown, at the time teaching at the University of Missouri, I believe. His textbook contains not a single equation.
there is only one single equation in Schumpeter's The Theory of Economic Development
Personally, the key is,say, mathematics is still largely theoretical and more noticeably, quantitative with mechanism. Accordingly, such predominant methodology themed in Occidental world might not address a vast majority of concerns related to humanity, including both psychological and cognitive aspects. As increasingly acknowledged nowadays, such mentioned aspects are anyway indispensable in a whole-ranging socio-economic events. Such is the apparent consideration for history--- one of the most core humanity disciplines, to perform a growing function.
can we get the presentation slides of this lecture ???
well I'm in 10th grade and next years I have to choose a stream or you can say some subjects soo is it compulsory to take maths if I'm willing to study economics????
Majestic!
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
Very informative fight
That first question about interest rates was typical of a modern economics student. Cringe-worthy
And knowing history would tell you about the movements against lending money into circulation in the first place. The Greenbackers and the Chicago school during the 1930s advocated having government issue all money and having banks only lend from term deposits. Even the ancient Roman Republic spent fiat currency into circulation for domestic spending (the nomisma) and used the silver dinar mostly for foreign trade. Yet our knowledge of monetary history is so sketchy that we often have superficial notions that are far from the truth.
@@dansullivan0 bingo
Guess that's a valid reason to apply to economic history :)
Ha-Joon Chang just melted my face 😮
Ha Joon Chang is one of the greatest minds on the planet right now
Me too
Ha Joon change is awesome
No he isn't.
Regarding Economics, history is the cornerstoned and central 'essence', mathematical and quantitative methods are most likely the vehicles to fully maximise such essence to contribute to the pragmatic aspects and issues at all levels.
I wish there should be subtitles added by default.
Usage of numbers always adds credibility to one's argument economics is no exception. Only econometric's / statistics allow for data scrutiny and validation which probably would carry limited value unless it comes with empirical data findings. Chicken and egg situation here with any research expected to have numbers if only in a form of an appendixes. This level of detail demonstrates robustness of the social science of the economics where research plays a huge part in building a case for one's argument or helps to answer pertinent project related questions.
So what was the rough split of the vote at the end?
+BeGunNer Hi, the votes were not counted but the split was roughly 60-40 in favour of the motion.
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.
Jajajajajaja The women at the end nailed what the conversation its all about, which its an epistemic problem, I think the nominal topic of the debate, transformed into this false dychotomy of
Data or Story = Facts. When in reality, History as a science, and not a political instrument its what enables Economy to integratre other social sciences into the analitical frame for emperical research. And its also important to understand History of ideas and the context into which they are built.
Now bring Kuhn, Popper or Fayebarand into the conversation and the answer of the guy it basically is: "look man, im just an economist". Which its understandable but it doesnt mean its not central to what its being tried to discuss here. Self examination its neccessary to every social science, the nature of contigent causalities its always there Damn even the "natural" sciences, do this because sometimes knowledge its not always accumulative sometimes its sustite facts into beliefs.
Parece española además
Many things define economy two of them are political decisions and society if one of this change the rest also change
Already, a great first 8 minutes.
now let's do one on philosophy.
You can prove anything you want with math and still be dead wrong because your model / initial assumptions are completely divorced from reality.
1:14:02 because some economist are mathematicians based upon focus, pure math, applied math or other
Interesting take but other ecconomists have argued that there isn't enough maths in ecconomics. In particular obsessions with equilibrium when the ecconomy doesn't seem to have a steady state.
there should be an equilibrium but look at MIT & CSE. Both schools use models with heavy math and still botch their predictions. It's prevalent they lack the rational/logic/reasoning in their underlying assumptions and framework which leads to data being over weighted.
True, in either case one must prioritize function and pragmatism, which current mathematical approaches lack
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.
does anyone have notes for this?
Evertime we reduce the chaos of human endeavour to mathematical symbols we must necessarily assume that the extremes are irrelevant, and for every symbol those irrelevancies necessarily multipy.
Who said that
@@sandworm9528 Pretty much every statistician, economist and mathematician in the last 300 years who works from data acknowleges the point - the maths reflects reality not the other way around, the only Q is to what degree is the maths an accurate reflection.
@@carnivaltym they pay lip service to it and then continue on their merry way doing the exact same thing. Behavioural economics excluded and obviously the work on asymmetric information by Joseph stiglitz. But speaking broadly neoclassical economics works with models necessarily divorced from reality
Great talk, but I wouldnt call an introduction to statistics and a course on convex optimization "too much maths".
good man
I didn't watch much yet, but I already think he's brilliant!
by idea i meant for example: if i have bread more and the other person have more milk ...i can exchange some bread for milk and vice versa...and maths help to measure it at an optimum manner so that all are are satisfied...
Or yes there is mathematical manipulations
1:22:24 Red Herring and Ad Hominem.
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).
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 🙃
Let them have a discussion between each other for gods sake. The moderator keeps on stopping them from doing so.
The host of show needs to let these professors debate, and control the debates, not be dismissive.
40:55 Singapore role of state in housing and society.
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,
There is nothing wrong with identifying strong correlation, either. Correlation can be a good predictor, even if a causal mechanism can not be established. In that case we are simply talking about proxy variables.
I have a feeling that no economist has sofar property understood how economies work and why change.
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.
28:00 legend
History, no doubt is important, Economics without mathematics would be like a princess without a crown. Mathematics adds beauty to Economic theory.
Maybe, but to physics it adds function. Maybe now you see the problem
30:29 LOOOL
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.
History doesn't teach you anything, other than that people are stupid, that is. We don't need to study the stupidity of people. We need to make them smarter with science.
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.
Economists are scientists. They don't hold beliefs. Every time you meet an "economist" with a belief system (like the folks of the Austrian school), you have simply met a conman. ;-)
I want subtitles
What he’s essentially saying is, we don’t need as many international students to handle US economics. No need to apply if all you know how to do is solve complex equations.
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.
So he was basically just bullshitting. ;-)
eh, where the sciance?
50:00
too little emphasis on the effects of financing the economy. understanding credit is not well presented and thus misleading.
There can never be = in the real economic world
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.
None of that has anything to do with economics. Economics is the theory of scarcity.
@@schmetterling4477 duhhhhhhh, I was thinking about the actual action as it effects reality.
The study of you see.
@@dennisfarris4729 Yes, "Economics is the theory of scarcity.". That's it. It tries to explore what effects the finiteness of energy, matter and labor have on human decision making. That's it. No need to be confused about this. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 seems a shocking lack of ability to read here ...
My point on how education could advance the study ...
@@dennisfarris4729 That's trite. Education is always the starting point for anything. You couldn't even read and write without education. At least you got to that point. Not much further, though.
Maybe we need more math and even more history.
I love all of the non-economists saying that there is not enough history in economics.
I learned very little about slavey in my Econ degree from Georgetown. Which is such a crazy detail to leave out because the formal study of Economics was necessitated by the vast amounts of profits from slavery.
Literally had to double minor in Afro-studies because Economics somehow don’t believe people can be unfairly exploited.
We had very different experiences. I went to the University of Rochester, and while it doesn't have the prestige overall of Georgetown, the Economics Dept is pretty well renowned. We do have courses in discrimination and slavery.
Regardless, I don't think it's true at all about economics being a field because of slavery and profits. I also don't think it's true at all that economists believe that there can be no exploitation. In fact, ask any hardcore libertarian, free market economist if slavery was exploitative and I guarantee that they will say, "yes."
Nope. I learned working for corporate that bean counters drain the life out of an employment unit. Principles over beans.
"The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time...It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.
To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university." ~ Benedict XVI
If you can do advanced MAth I think you can understand history
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!
hey guys.. what about austrian methodology non mathematical non history.
I ded!!! 🤣🤣🤣
DILO MI NIÑO
really economics is hard sceince .
that is why economists
make Assumptions!!!
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.
It's sad not knowing enough english to understand.
Gabriela Carducci good luck with your English
learn it angel , you will win
Economics is the study of exploiting land and people for max resources.
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.
You have a extremely wrong bias about history, "is writting by victorious". Is a very not true statement, if you know a bit more, which it seems you don't.
while my own undergraduate experience was a little like the one described, and I was frustrated by the level of maths I soon began to realise my frustration was born out of my expectations of what I thought economics was or should be, compared to the obvious reality of what it IS.
our use of economics and dependency on it as a sole measurement for policy is imo the issue. our expectation of its power is a problem.
I feel we have to let economists do economics. let historians do history. sociologists do sociology. psychologists do psychology. it is then with the policy makers to use ALL aspects of social science to draw conclusions. maybe economics is a good "base" or starting point for assumptions, analsysis and implications on policy, but should then evolve through the social sciences for almost like a "validity check".
only once it passes through this system should it be introduced as "Policy".
we need to drop the one size fits all mentality, the idea an individual discipline can capture the complete complexities we call life, and work together, rather than argue about who is more "academically sound", we should be more concerned about the effect on reality.
Agreed, this is why economics should focus on economic models (that may or may not use math), and historians should study the history of economic thought, along with other social and political aspects of history.
I study Economics and I'm bad at maths I would'nt know maths are very critical for Economics
Can any one recommend me how to learn maths?
"Essential mathematics for economic analysis" is a really good beginners book for the math in economics.
Learn basic algebra first. I think
They don't understand anything
Beg to differ here. America teaches its undergrads like you want to---and all its economists are statistics and engineering majors. History sure offers you perspective but a strong grounding in Maths enhances both your understanding of Economics and your prospects on the job market.
The likes of Raj Chetty are revolutionising the field, not charlatans like Niall Ferguson.
I can't take Prof. Francesco Caselli seriously because he reminds me of Hank Azaria in The Birdcage. Sorry!!
reminiscent of Hank Azaria period
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.
It's hard to believe anyone could take Prof Caselli seriously given his astonishingly shallow and lazy contribution here.
@1:16:00 Even as a female, I would NOT have wanted THAT female economist to be on the panel given the political barking of her politics
Out of the obligation as a profesional economists！ She is a lecturer at LSE.
Economics are too much based on the rational choice, and in meaningless models. macroeconomics is just aggregating micro and that's not how life works. you cant sum up preferences and theorize a country
economics is idea to generate growth and mathematics is a tool to measure it....both are like two sides of a same coin.....
When you want to generate growth, one must also define what growth is and whom it favours as well. History is key in understanding that. All the major problems in the world today root down to inequality. We just study about using resources for getting maximum satisfaction. We also need to study who is recieving that satisfaction and in what proportion. We distribute the satisfaction inequally. Maths can definitely measure the amount of inequality but can never suggest ways to remove it. For true growth and development of a society we need to look at economics with historical and sociological aspects as well. Only then the true satisfaction in the economy will increase.
@@pulakpathak-0963 pls underline my statement i said maths is only a measurement tool...in much more simpler terms data analytic tool ....
@@oniontomatovakamullayuvara5638 you also said they are two sides of the same coin. Which is a bad metaphor for defining the relationship of math and Economics
Francesco was very arrogant and aggressive. I'd rather be taught by those two economic history professors. In fact all my former history of economics, economics thought teachers, were far more interesting people and taught better and with morepassion than the macro teachers.
I may just be a lonely PhD student, but I completely disagree. Just like in physics, we start off with a simplified model, for example point-masses, with such a model fitting the real world to a certain degree. Then we build on top of that model and make a center-of-mass model and so on, loosening assumptions so that the model fits the real world better (sometimes having to start over with a new model or going back a few steps). If we are to go back to having no or even less math, then economics moves further from being a science and ends up just a bunch of antidotes like the rest of the humanities. When physics was started, Greek philosophers spoke of physics like we speak of history, with antidotes of how things happen. They thought if you dropped a ball twice as heavy as another ball it would fall twice as fast (which is wrong). When math was introduced and the subject was made rigorous, it became a science. We need to keep building better models in economics with more math, not go backwards.
God speed
The goal isn't to replace mathematical models with historical research. To go by your example of physics, progress wasn't made by tweaking abstract models but measuring physical phenomena. The reason one would use historical data in economics is for the sake of empirical study of the effects of past policy on market dynamics and, as others pointed out, to account for factors which aren't strictly part of standard economic models, in other words historical contingencies. As well as history one could also look at effects of current policies by the same standard as I am referring to for historical analysis. I don't think the latter would negate the value of historical studies though because the latter would be very reliant on trial and error and thus significantly more prone to and dependant upon error as a source of future corrective which might have been mitigated by foresight enabled through historical studies.
What I am trying to say is that even historical studies do not do away with mathematical models, nor does it do away with theory. It merely incorporates historical reasoning as a tool for theoretical reasoning in general.
You are completely ignorant of the history of science. "Antidotes"? Wtf are you actually trying to say?
This is just nonsense.
The problem is that economics doesn't take social and psychological factors into account. Econ models are based on the assumption that people have perfect information and always make the correct choices, and that's not true, and for this reason most models are garbage. The modeling itself is not bad because it helps us to visualize, the problem is when the modeling is used to predict.
Anecdotes, I think he meant.
Economics is the quantitative theory of scarcity. His intellectual laziness to learn math doesn't change that. ;-)
Wrong definition but okay 👍
@@ludlowaloysius Give a better one. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477how do you understand scarcity without a historical context and standard? Politics, military, culture, etc. influence economics, how does your math understand the war in Ukraine and its consequences on economy only by math?
@@thieph What does it matter who won a battle in 333BC for the fact that you can't have an infinite amount of anything? You aren't making any sense here. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 history is not only about the battle of 333 BC, you don't make any sense here
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 .....
..
....