![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So after I finished my economics course this semester I have determined that Economists really know jack all.
They have lots of theories, and unlike Science which seeks to refute and/or verify findings, economics just has a bunch of conflicting unverifiable theories that amount to a bunch of infighting between schools of thought. It's ridiculous trying to be tested on it.
School of Thought "A" says Inflation and unemployment are correlated.
School of Though "B" says Inflation and umeployment are not correlated.
Now explain this on a multiple choice test.
I still wonder why the field is given as much credibility as it has, because they completely lack means by which to explain many of their macroeconomic theories and thus become famous economists for things they will never have to defend.
They have lots of theories, and unlike Science which seeks to refute and/or verify findings, economics just has a bunch of conflicting unverifiable theories that amount to a bunch of infighting between schools of thought. It's ridiculous trying to be tested on it.
School of Thought "A" says Inflation and unemployment are correlated.
School of Though "B" says Inflation and umeployment are not correlated.
Now explain this on a multiple choice test.
I still wonder why the field is given as much credibility as it has, because they completely lack means by which to explain many of their macroeconomic theories and thus become famous economists for things they will never have to defend.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject