/sci/ - Science & Math

> reading the opinion pages
> thinks this represents economics
confirmed for righttard

Paul Krugman is a fucking joke.

Economics, however, is very important. We wouldn't have the means to advance most other sciences if not for economics.

>>4181006
Look into what it is that economists do and prepare to be disapointed.

Hint: government.
Super-hint: go read this:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20110301a.htm

That's what you do.

>>4181023

Because the Austrians aren't dumbasses, right?

>>4181006
Yep. I loathed my economics classes. The models were a crock and math was shunned.

>>4181142
did you only take first-year level courses?

>>4181006
economics is just a forecasting device, it's no more accurant than a 1 month weather forecast.

>>4181146
He definitely stopped at 101.

My 200lvl micro theory course had twice as much math as the 100lvl physics at my school

Weel, every society has had its logistics

>>4181158
That shows how insecure they felt about the whole thing, that they had to put more math in it to make it look more "sciencey".

>>4181158
Nope. I took Micro and Macro up to the 3000 level.

>>4181146
Thanks for the speculation, asshole.

>My 200lvl micro theory course had twice as much math as the 100lvl physics at my school

Implying your 100lvl physics wasn't an algebra based joke. I bet your lower division econ class also had more math than Remedial Shakespeare, that doesn't mean it wasn't severely lacking in math.

>>4181170
idk where you took econ then, but any advanced text I've ever seen reads like a math book

>>4181170
And no, 100lvl was calc-based, but strictly single variable at my school.

>>4181314
There are plenty of formulas and mathy sounding things in the text but it isn't real math. It's not derivable from justified axioms, it's just arbitrary.

And when we went over things like optimizing your utility function subject to a budget constraint we didn't use the obvious technique of using Lagrange multipliers because there was an aversion to math in the department. Instead we did some bullshit with finding a point that satisfies the condition that the budget be tangent to the specific utility curve which although it worked it was very ad hoc and trial and error.

Examples like this happened all the time. They were just unwillingly to apply techniques beyond Calc 1 even when it was entirely appropriate.

"The model"? You do realize that there are hundreds or thousands of economic models, right? Right? No?

Undergrad economics is not the same thing as real economics.

>>4181158
How is there math involved in micro at all?

It's mostly just APM, and knowing where to position your units and what frames you can cancel to get the maximum amount of attack and movement for kiting.

>>4181350
>micro
>It's mostly just APM

All of my no.

>>4181355
That being said I did lol at your post; it was a good one. ;)

Macroeconomics is total crap. Even Brad De Long came out a few months ago on his blog and said that teaching macroeconomic theory does more harm than good to undergrads. He isn't even sure what to teach under macroeconomics anymore. Microeconomics looks to be somewhat more solid.

Also, you won't get a serious answer from economics majors here, because they tend to be butthurt faggots that are quick to defend their pseudoscience of macroeconomics.

I took 100 level macro and micro econ last semester for general education...god damn that shit was fucking boring... the class was isomorphic to a history or biology class (memorize definitions/events, don't apply shit).

From what I interpreted from the material I was taught, macro is worthless. Its equitable to statistical mechanics in the sense that every variable is dependent on one another. Whats worse though is there is no control... so if you vary anything, everything else changes by unknown amounts (because you don't know anything because you can't control shit!) Its only usefulness is seen seems to be seen in the short run..anything long run inevitably sucks the dick of the multivariate chain rule.

>>4181363
>>4181358

Yeah, ya'll have my full support here. I took macro up to the 3000 level and it was all just ridiculous. Micro was much less arbitrary and much more rational.

I took an introductory course once, and therefore have a highly informed opinion about the validity, methods, and limitations of an entire field.

economics should be defined as just print more money until all our problems are solved.

>>4181387
Yeah that shit was so cash for the Germans.

I'm very interested in economics, I've only taken the lowest level classes however.

Is it a joke field though? Will I be able to find a fulfilling career in economics?

I'm more keen on pursuing micro if that helps

thanks

>>4181390
It's a joke, but you can make money doing it.

>>4181386

The tools they teach in basic math and physics carry over into the next set of courses, and in many cases are required in order to continue. The lower level econ classes are complete rubbish, illogical, arbitrary, and bullshit. If these intro classes carry over into the higher classes, then the field is trash. If they don't carry over, then why waist anyone's time teaching such garbage.

>>4181394
Oh.

Well I don't need that much money.

What about a dual Math/Econ degree?

I've been considering doing that

ITT: People think undergraduate or even secondary school Econ courses represent the field.

>Protip: They don't.

I'd suggest you attend some seminars or conferences to see what is really being done. It's far from trivial and quite different from what you see on Krugman's silly blog.

>>4181363

Memorising definitions in Micro? What the flying fuck are you talking about? There's hardly anything you *could* memorise. Everything in the Micro system can be derived logically with little trouble.

>>4181405
Why not just do a math degree? You will assuredly need some number of credits in the humanities so you could just fill those up with econ classes if it interests you. That will give you some idea of the field whilst the mathematics will give you some degree of legitimacy.

>that feel when you left this thread for dead after first response, came back to /sci/ and found a bunch of replys

:)

>>4181410
What is the most significant problem being undertaken right now in economics?

I'm completely naive about research economics, I only know most entry level stuff.

Thanks, any insight you have is appreciated

>>4181410
So everything you do in undergraduate and graduate economics has nothing to do with the field? I'm not willing to pursue it further on the promise that "it gets better" from someone on an anonymous image board.

>>4181418

Yeah I will probably do this. I might go into physics or engineering. Math gives more options

>>4181422
How do we make more money?

ITT: Faggots think that economics is "trickle down theory."

also ITT: faggots only take a first year course and complain about how it has so little math and how it's a weak science

also ITT: faggots got a bad professor or are reading opinion pages which don't accurately describe the turnouts to models within economics

ITT: lots of bullshit.


Supply/demand curves. Learn them, love them, live them. Price ceilings and price floors are bullshit. Abolish minimum wage, remove price restrictions on housing. Fuck da police.

>>4181429
Oh...Really?

Is economics by and large pretty evil? Or can you be a benevolent economist?

>>4181391
i see what you did there...

>>4181436
>supply/demand curves

lol

>>4181423
No, it's not worthless, but it's somewhat trivial compared to actual research. In undergraduate courses one becomes familiar with basic (often unrealistic) Economic models based on sometimes odd assumptions (such as perfect rationality). The main purpose is to let you become familiar with logical reasoning and some basic tools within Economics that can be incorporated into advanced models, which go way beyond what you learn in Micro or Macro 101. Graduate Economics is where it truly becomes interesting, as one starts to drop all the assumptions made in the basic undergraduate models and the link between the real world and Economics (which is honestly not all that strong in undergraduate courses) becomes very apparent.

tl;dr Undergraduate Economics is there to teach you reasoning needed to do graduate Economics. I think a maths undergraduate would also be able to fulfill that purpose, which explains why people tend to switch between these fields.

>>4181422
Impossible to define the single most important thing being researched, just as it is impossible to say what the most important research is in Physics or any other science. Development Economics looks into why poor countries remain poor, or why firms in underdeveloped countries fail to innovate, and so on ( - no, it's not just hurrdurr corruption. There's a lot more to it. Imo, this is a *very* interesting field within Economics). Behavioural Economics looks into whether people act rationally in different situations, and if they don't; Why? A few days ago I went to a seminar about an experiment done about inflation expectations among US citizens. These expectations determine the effectiveness of monetary policy, and are thus vital for central banks all over the world.

>>4181435
>Benevolent Economist

LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAAHWBHAWHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH DUDE GET A LOAD OF THIS GUY

>>4181410

>Everything in the Micro system can be derived logically with little trouble.

LOL, this shit cracks me up. Apparently Microeconomics is an apriori endeavour that can be totally derived from axioms.

Economists: not scientists, but platonists.

Math major here. I am a TA for a 400 level macro course and thoroughly enjoy learning economics. The problem with the field is that there is so much we don't know. Which also gives you great incentive to do research. Study what you want to learn about OP.

There are plenty of maths in the higher level courses. This thread is filled with dumbass college freshman and high schoolers.

>>4181484

>thoroughly enjoy learning witchcraft

FTFY

>>4181484

Have you seen the axioms, though? You only need 3 of them to prove the existence of a utility function, for instance:
Completeness of preferences (i.e. that you know how much you like stuff)
Transitivity (If A > B and B > C then A > C)
Continuity (Compared to a vector of goods, there are three sets: Strictly preferred, indifferent and unpreferred)

I wouldn't exactly call these axioms ridiculous.

>>4181501

C'mon man. You stated "Everything". You made a universal quantification that included all parts of microeconomics. Surely there exists at least one counter-example of a non-apriori areas of microeconomics research. Behavioural economics would come to mind.

Can you derive research based on inductive reasoning purely by deduction? Because that would be quite a feat.

>>4181514

Ah, I see what you mean. I was referring to how the tools used weren't come up with arbitrarily, but truly fit within one large framework based on only a very small number of axioms. Of course, in research one has to question some of the basic assumptions which then sometimes calls for the use of new tools or shows logical explanations for why the axioms still hold despite a seeming contradiction. Behavioural Economics could indeed serve as an example for that (Prospect Theory comes to mind).

thanks for the insight everyone

Doing PhD in statistics with the focus on economics. Our department is more statistics than economics though.

The problem with economics is that unlike in physics or other sciences you can not do a closed experiment and isolate it from external influences. On the other hand you only need to identify most of the statistically significant influences up to a point where your model has credibility (this can vary). It is more challenging this way and yes also opens the field for more failure opportunities.