(no subject)

[waterspyder]

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.

Comments

Some fun, leisure reading

[forrest-grump.livejournal.com]

I highly recommend Policy Paradox by Deborah Stone. I was in the same boat as you while completing my pre-reqs. However, my thesis supervisor recommended this book as food for thought while developing my theoretical framework.

You will love this book! She spends page after page shredding the market model when it is applied to public policy.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Might I point out that you are discussing the field of study which turned out the theory that relies on an invisible hand?

For a multiple choice test, I recommend smuggling in a die.

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

Oh it was close.

I also had some issues with the unconventional mathematical notations.

[krueger.livejournal.com]

Hey...watch it..!...remember who reads your posts

YOur example has theories from two different styles of economics...

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

My point!