I’m new to this series. Very interesting. Re: 2008 Financial Crisis Why did it happen? In a nutshell: Legalized cheating. And quite a bit of illegal cheating (and fraud, and lying, and betting against one’s own investors (eg Goldman Sachs)). That’s not included in economic models.
without bothering to look at what a market physically is.. which is pretty low on intellectual curiosity. its aprofession not a science .. just like advertisers, and journalists .. its the software to complement the hardware of governments
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.
@Language and Programming Channel Well, Physics is hard science -- and it does deal with some form of equilibrium, though not the same as that of Economics. Equilibrium, in physics, is the condition of a system when neither its state of motion nor its internal energy state tends to change with time. An equilibrium in Physics is unstable if the least departure produces forces that tend to increase the displacement. An example of such equilibrium is a ball bearing balanced on the edge of a razor blade.
@@suchitraabel4298 In science you get experiments which are repeatable, laws which are universal and undisputable. The same can't be said about human nature which is what economics is trying to explain. This is not to say the notion of equilibrium or the fact that consumers are constantly trying to maximize utilities aren't useful in any sense. It's just that the theories and its models have their limitations needs to be contextualized. There is no one size fit all theory or _the theory of everything_ akin to those in physics because economic ideas are dynamic not static. What works in country A may not work in country B, what works in this century might not work in the next century because society and the systems that governs it are constantly evolving. Economist just needs to accept the fact that no matter how much work they put in, the irrationality of human nature can't be fully understood. Give me a model that can explain the economic success of Singapore (of which majority of its land is owned by the govt; 80% of its housing is financed by the govt and there's a 90% home ownership rate; a fifth of GDP generated by state-owned enterprise; a rather authoritarian rule during its rapid development in the 70s-90s). You can't.
@@dariuschong4574 The points that you made here are very good. My work using AI in Economics is close to being finished, but not quite finished. At this stage, what I will tell people is that it will not be "one size fits all". The program will have the flexibility to adopt to each country's and each situations' unique conditions, before producing results.
11/01/2019. 17 minutes and 11 seconds in (started from the beginning). The students are winning, as they should. The wise sage suffers from the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, big time. On the other hand, the students do not realize that all is emergent, especially in the natural world where science lives. There can be no equilibrium, and if you think about it, deeply, it can be no other way. The economist really, I mean really, need to read Darwin. And go take a walk like he did in 1836. Had all I can stand for tonight. MB
Perfect. The professor assumes that nature is equilibrium and this frames the question if economics is science or not. The task being, then, identifing in society the equivalent of the "gravity" element that in nature is suposed to be the cause of equilibrium.
Skidelsky might be knowledgable about economic history but his understanding of science is poor, as evidenced by the misunderstanding in his analogies. As for his defence of Neoclassical Equilibrium Theory, I assume he's playing Devil's Advocate for the benefit of his students. I didn't get the impression that he believes in it himself. (Note his comments around 13:20. ) Unlike indoctrinated economists, his students are not yet shackled by philosophical baggage, so they immediately notice and point out the flaws in these equilibrium theories. Combining the two points above, where is his discussion of the absence of UNSTABLE equilibriums from economic theory, which are commonly found in nature and hence form an important part of scientific theories?
economics goes through ideology->action->profit and corrections to ensure and sustain profit for some(one) regardless of consequences to others while science (natural) goes through observation->model->experiment->tentative law and corrections to eliminate ideology and personal bias; also, you can apply mathematics to any human activity, for example, astrology can use statistical analysis but that does not make it a science!
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 am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but there are other solution concepts in economics other than general (or partial) equilibrium (I.e. when supply equals demand). Take a look at en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_game. I’m not sure if you are suggesting something similar to a Bayesian game in which agents learn (your “AI approach”). I know there’s a new literature in which agents in the game are learning with misspecified models and are endogenous to the data generating processes (here’s something to get you started on that literature economics.mit.edu/files/13773). If you have something new to add, I think it will be well received since a there is a lot of interest in learning in economics.
@@izzyc1570 Thanks for this reply. I am building an AI-based system to help Economics. There can be some sense of equilibrium, (though not a permanent one) as my finished work will show. An equilibrium is achieved when the state of stable conditions in which all significant factors remain more or less constant over a period (can be a short period), and there is little or no inherent tendency for change (in that period). Some concepts, created by me, show the stable conditions, when the proper AI-based relations are achieved and subsumed (here "subsumed " is a technical term that I created and used it in AI research).
what are "all significant factors"? what is the granularity of an "economic force"? have economists tried to find any physical conditions for this equilibrium.. if not.. how are you fleshing out this theory... this sounds like bad thermodynamics .
There wouldn't be ever possible equilibrium in any ways even devine rules are applied by human at most. There's why devine gives idea of here after life and charity donation this life.
I am only ~6.5 minutes into this, but I observe that if there really was a market-clearing price, all grocery stores would be empty at the time they close, every day, like the fish market (me thinks). The farmer with excess apples at the end of the day does not lower his prices below the feed value they will bring if he takes them home and feeds them to his hogs; who were not at the "market" by-the-way. The farmer may very well value the joy his hogs get out of eating the market-rejected-apples than the oh-so-savvy consumer who has rejected his apples. And the end point of economic activity, above subsistence, is joy, or why engage? I have been reading economics since the mid 1970s (Milton and Rose's "Free to Choose" was the first big impact) and now realize it is all a farce, a really big one. "The Free Market" is the sum of society at the time of any one transaction, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing, really, to do with price or efficiency, but everything to do with allocation and distribution, and the willing ignorance of the consumer (or the now buried idea of "rational ignorance"). Economic activity in and of itself is not the endpoint in any society but a doomed one. Michael Bain Glorieta, New Mexico
Don't you think that the stigma of not predicting the economic meltdown of 2008-09 and the bubble burst of 2002 is getting bigger and bigger day by day on the face of the economists. The expectations from the discipline of Economics are also growing much faster than any other disciplines. Economics waits for the society to do wrong things and once it happens (like in case the great depression, bubble burst, Economics meltdown), it loves to explain it with fancy models I mean Economics models.
The fundamental economic epidemic is our pathological work ethic coupled with mass addiction. We slave to fulfill our duty to work supplying those toxic products that we are pathologically conditioned to demand. A true heterodoxy will eliminate this standardized work ethic the 9-5 and addiction driven culture.
its not our fault.. the cult of economics has made people believe that whatever they say is a law of nature .. economists are responsible for a lot loss of meaning in peoples lives thats for sure. they have no shame because they themselves are groomed to think its actually doing anything worthwhile right now.. apart from keeping its own shambolic perpetually failing system going - by dumping their failures onto people who do stuff we all need
![[DISCUSSION] Is Economics a Science? | How & How NOT to Do Economics | Robert Skidelsky](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
