For a very long time Economists from all “schools” have been trying and theorizing economics under “the one universal prescription”.
Imagine you go to the doctor and every time you have a problem you are faced with the same answer, same prescription and same doctrine.
All economists from all schools are desperately searching to write things on stone.
If there is an issue on topic X ……………ah well you can find the answer on page # from book XX.
All humankind economic history can be successfully explained.
That does not make economic science too hard is it??
Don’t you get bored???
As an economics and accounting major I have different ideas myself.
For example: in accounting (even under the universality of “debits & credits” and 3 different financial statements) no matter how similar the problem is you must “AUDIT” the data and offer a unique explanation and a unique solution.
This is not probably the answer you are specting but here it goes.
I think you are confusing science and engieneering.
Science is about discovering universal rules (patterns) in the universe (or the reality that is being studied).
Engineering is about using those rules to create useful tools and/or apply those rules discovered by the scientist to solve particular problems. I am an engineer myself.
You are probably looking at a “engineering” issue.
I bet if you ask 3 economists from the same school they all have the same answer from the same book.
So you’re complaining about how science yields consistent results?
Would you be happy if you asked 3 physicists a question and they each gave different answers: E=mc, E=mc^2, and E=mc^3? If they all say E=mc^2, would that be too boring for you?
We can start by not confusing economics with physics or other sciences.
Read again.
baxter wrote the following post at Mon, Jun 21 2010 3:36 PM:
I bet if you ask 3 economists from the same school they all have the same answer from the same book.
So you’re complaining about how science yields consistent results?
Would you be happy if you asked 3 physicists a question and they each gave different answers: E=mc, E=mc^2, and E=mc^3? If they all say E=mc^2, would that be too boring for you?
“Imagine you go to the doctor and every time you have a problem you are faced with the same answer, same prescription and same doctrine.”
This is a poor analogy to universality in economics. The apples-to-apples comparison would be that when presented with the exact same situation in a patient (including their histories, etc.), that the doctor responds the same way in each case (as he should).
In the short term, but it can also decrease efficiency in a volatile market. A business that totally relies on one specialist’s skill will be out of luck if she quits and a replacement isn’t found quick - in a volatile market the business might be better off with 3 people who are mediocre at the skill but can also fill other roles.
-Decreasing marginal utility in use-value
The more I use a paint brush, the better I get at painting, and the more enjoyable it becomes - the more I smoke cigarettes, the more I want to smoke cigarettes - that’s increasing marginal utility in use-value - it happens.
NewLiberty wrote the following post at Tue, Jun 22 2010 10:04 AM:
“Imagine you go to the doctor and every time you have a problem you are faced with the same answer, same prescription and same doctrine.”
This is a poor analogy to universality in economics. The apples-to-apples comparison would be that when presented with the exact same situation in a patient (including their histories, etc.), that the doctor responds the same way in each case (as he should).
ravochol wrote the following post at Tue, Jun 22 2010 11:08 AM:
-Division of Labor increases efficiency
In the short term, but it can also decrease efficiency in a volatile market. A business that totally relies on one specialist’s skill will be out of luck if she quits and a replacement isn’t found quick - in a volatile market the business might be better off with 3 people who are mediocre at the skill but can also fill other roles.
-Decreasing marginal utility in use-value
The more I use a paint brush, the better I get at painting, and the more enjoyable it becomes - the more I smoke cigarettes, the more I want to smoke cigarettes - that’s increasing marginal utility in use-value - it happens.
It demonstrates that these are not economic laws, as the above poster implied; you have to go on a case by case basis and examine the specific circumstances.
I don’t think there are economic laws anymore than there are laws of human nature. Someone can be motivated to build a cathedral because they’re paid in gold coins, because they’re paid in paper that they believe can be redeemed in gold coins, because they’re paid in paper that has no relation to any commodity, or because they believe that they will get a golden halo in the afterlife.
There’s no “one correct” economic system; there are many approaches which can all result in a decent and rising standard of living, and even more which don’t. Which one to go with depends on the local history, culture, values, institutions etc.
A business that totally relies on one specialist’s skill will be out of luck if she quits and a replacement isn’t found quick
newsflash, division of labor != specialisation of skills.
If you hire 3 people they participate in the division of labour.
The more I use a paint brush, the better I get at painting, and the more enjoyable it becomes - the more I smoke cigarettes, the more I want to smoke >>cigarettes - that’s increasing marginal utility in use-value - it happens.
Again, you haven’t even levied a criticism against the economics but rather a strawman. For any paintbrush that could provide you with ‘can paint with this my ever better paintings’ services an additional such paintbrush gives you decreased marginal utility.
Yes everything has a decreasing marginal utility at some point or in some way, but not everything has a marginal decreasing utility in every way or in every situtation. “Marginal decreasing utility” isn’t a law like the “law of gravity,” it’s a general principle or rule of thumb, like everything in the social sciences or humanties, which is what economics is.
“Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid”
maybe that’s metaphorically true, but it’s not literally true. Nothing in economics is as universally true as “all angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees,” because economics is a study of changeable humans, not of a fixed abstraction like a triangle.
as for the first, the name of the law, or a brief description is not the whole law itself, it merely refers to the law. so thanks for admitting you were not critiqueing the laws referred to but rather a misunderstanding of the laws in question.
as for my signature quote. this boils down to theories of justice. Its a quote from Locke. It is meant to express a reverence for the institution of private property. I suppose there are people out there that say that they think it matters not who owns what for justice to be done. but similarly I know people that deny (or say they deny) core principles of logic like non-contradiction. Euclidean gemoetry can’t be that easy to demonstrate if you have a mind with a polylogical bent… something to think about.
As for your final point, it is partially right and partially wrong. Pure praxeologically derived economic knowledge is valid and timeless formalism.(see Mises); even if econometrics which the mainstream consider an important aspect of economics would fit your critique against universal truth.