You’re telling me that you are born with the mathematical concept of 1,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 or say, for the sake of simplicity, 2?
Hence, mathematics is a system, not a cognitive/mental/subjective construction one is born with.
You really mean to tell me that an infant born with a tabula rasa knows what the number 1,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 means and what value it has in relation to other numbers?
It is different for each country. Just because you inject 100 billion dollars into the US economy doesn’t mean that injecting 100 billion Euros into the EU will have the same effect.
Generally excepted is a problem for precision.
These are just two problems off the top of my head. But these two alone are enough to show that you cannot repeat a consistent test. Experiments need to be repeatable.
Well it’s not so easy to show that these statements can be proven or disproven. Suppose we make the claim that if the government were to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, there would be an increase in unemployment. But what if, at the same time, the government also injects a lot of money into the economy, so that employers believe they can afford to hire people at $15/hour. We may not see an increase in unemployment at all (well, not until the boom busts). The thing is, that there are more than two variables in an economy at any given time. There could be any number of things that can make it appear that an economists predictions are wrong. And there is no way to isolate and control these variables. So I don’t think it’s so easy to disprove an AE claim based on “testing” the economy.
As I said before, if the conclusion is wrong, then it’s either the premises or the argument (or both) that is the problem. But in an economy, there is no way to know all the premises (inputs might be a better term for this, but I think that premise is suitable). In theory, if an AE economist were to know all the variables in an economy, I believe that he would be able to make accurate predictions about the future of an economy. This is because he would have a valid argument and true premises, which can only lead to a true conclusion. But the problem is that no one can know all of the variables in an economy. So this is why I believe “experiments” cannot work to test economic thought.
This is a great way to explain it - the damage is done during the boom. It kind of makes what Smiling Dave and I were talking about a moot point, so I suppose if we are to continue our conversation we should probably use a different example.
So what if it is different for each country? Here is how it’s done.
Checklist:
Credit expansion? Yes.
Boom? Yes.
AE says therefore bust will follow [as Clayton so eloquently explained]? Yes.
Other economic schools and/or politicians disagree and say a boom does not mean bust will happen? Yes.
Can we sit back and see who will be right? Yes.
Does that mean we have an experiment? Yes.
Generally accepted is problem for precision, but so what? Every experiment has problems of precision.
You are pointing out that minimum wage → unemployment is hard to prove. But that doesn’t mean all propositions of AE are hard to prove/disprove. Such as boom induced by credit expansion-> bust.
When we say experiments have to be repeatable, it does not mean they have to be repeatable on demand, or in the exact same circs. For example an example performed at time A can never be repeated, because time A is dead a second later.
Another example: Let’s say Superman drills into the center of the earth and his attached video cam shows everyone that it is populated by little green men. One of them then kills Superman somehow, [perhaps they are made of kryptonite], and no one ever finds a way to get down to the center of the earth again. In fact, the green men create a force field impenetrable to everything possible. The experiment is not repeatable, but so what?
Though I don’t think you will find many other possible experiments in economics because of the amount of uncontrolled variables. But in this case, you’ve convinced me.
I’m sure that for some experiments precision is crucial, though maybe not in this particular case.
Yes, I agree with this.
Yes, I agree with this. All I meant was that it is not really possible to account for and control all the variables in an economy. Another thing is that you cannot go back in time and show what would have happened if you had done something else, such as not expand the credit. In other words, I can set up an experiment in a lab with a control group and then have as many other groups as necessary in order to show what happens when different variables are tweaked. This is not possible for an economy. But, again, I think your setup is good for the ABCT, though I don’t think most of economics is as easy to test as this.
The experiment is repeatable in theory, even if it is not repeatable in practice. To use a more realistic example:
The US government sends astronauts to Mars, they conduct an experiment, whatever it may be. There is then a nuclear holocaust on Earth, completely eridacating all space exploration technology. Now no one can send astronauts to Mars, so it isn’t repeatable in practice, except that it is still repeatable in theory - so long as someone sends astronauts to Mars, it can be conducted again.
The point of repeatable experiments is so that others can verify that whatever results happened, happen again. If you can’t repeat an experiment, you can’t verify the results, whether they are true or false.
How do you prove that the cause of the bust was the boom? How do you prove that the cause of the boom was credit expansion? Maybe it was all due to ‘unfettered capitalism’!
How do you prove that the cause of the bust was the boom? How do you prove that the cause of the boom was credit expansion? Maybe it was all due to ‘unfettered capitalism’!
Proof is in Human Action, by logical reasoning.
Of course, these q’s have nothing to do with experimental proof of an economic theorem. One may ask how do you prove it is gravity [=credit expansion] that makes things fall, and not the wings of invisible creatures [=unfettered capitalism] , who might very well take a day off tomorrow.
Explanations of why are not the big q’s in modern science. Just the facts, maam.
What you are trying to show is that ‘if there is credit expansion, a depression follows’, but the point is that there can be a ‘depression’ without credit expansion, and there can be credit expansion without a discernible ‘depression’. What are the conditions in which all the known ‘depressions’ have taken place? Capitalism. Therefore if there is capitalism, depressions follow. This is empirically proven.
One, I can clearly tell you are lacking in the area of research as Wikipedia is not a source one would use to even bake corn bread given that anybody can edit it and there is no reputation nor credibility at stake. Just clarifying. That’s called Ethos, you ought to check it out. But then again, that’s an Aristotelian concept, so being that you appear to be a Platonic numerologist, I’ll let that go.
Two, yes, my definitions are spot on. Getting back to your justification…or will I have to repeat the entire question? Something makes me think you won’t answer. In addition to my previous question, mate, do you know what a tabula rasa is?