Economics aint a science friends. It's a behavioural "science" if anything, and y'all know that y'all can change your behaviours and they can't predict it.

Economics is Horse****

Who is studying these economics degrees and why?  :D :D

Hi Barnaby, welcome to our board.

Billy Jack wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Economics aint a science friends. It's a behavioural "science" if anything, and y'all know that y'all can change your behaviours and they can't predict it. Economics is Horse**** Who is studying these economics degrees and why?  :D :D

A few observations, Billy -
1) You may need a new microphone or just hold it a bit further away, when you are speaking.
2) I agree that the current standard Economics & indeed the Capitalist system will have to undergo some surgery, in the very near future, as will Politics in general, as none of them can/will survive in the longer term, in the format that they have had for the last 50-100 years!

Billy Jack wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Economics aint a science friends. It's a behavioural "science" if anything, and y'all know that y'all can change your behaviours and they can't predict it. Economics is Horse**** Who is studying these economics degrees and why?  :D :D

You know what they say about economic text books ?

Last years economic texts are this years toilet paper ;)

Billy Jack wrote on Oct 29^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Economics aint a science friends. It's a behavioural "science" if anything, and y'all know that y'all can change your behaviours and they can't predict it. Economics is Horse**** Who is studying these economics degrees and why?  :D :D

Did you hear the one about Barnaby Joyce declaring that 'free trade agreements' were a euphemism on live national tv?  :o

Economics is Horse****

And economists talk Horse****......Ben Bernanke is prof of that.

A little difficult to understand, what was that quote about 99.999% of economists thought debt was fine and didn't see.....didn't see the GFC coming was that what you said? Sorry I played it back a couple of times I couldn't hear that part. :(

Yes friend, you're right. And also that they thought that  exponentially increasing the amount of debt was completely sustainable...

Billy Jack wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 12:35am:

Yes friend, you're right. And also that they thought that  exponentially increasing the amount of debt was completely sustainable...

The worst part is that they thought that, were proven wrong, but still think that.

Now we sit here awaiting the 'proven wrong' again.

Billy Jack wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 12:35am:

Yes friend, you're right. And also that they thought that  exponentially increasing the amount of debt was completely sustainable...

What about Austrian Economists?
What about Friedman, Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Mises, Rothbard, Bastiat?

These people were largely against debt spending and the accumulation of debt, they were against government intervention (largely) and tampering with the market, not to mention the flaws of private central banking.

Many of which predicted the GFC, including people that are often attacked such as Peter Schiff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU

He was laughed off the TV for predicting the GFC.....the Austrians are considered the "doomsayers" of economics, yet they were mostly right. (lol maybe you're right, maybe the Austrians are the 0.001%)

No reasonably sane person would claim that economics has answers to any or all problems.
Human behaviour including economic behaviour is so full of variables that prediction of outcomes is impossible.
But should we stop taking measurements of volcanic activity because we can't say exactly when it will blow?
Should hospitals stop taking routine observations, blood tests etc because they will not necessarily tell us when cardiac arrest is going to  occur?
All discussion, debate and theorising in economics is good because it will help us to understand more & more about how the system might react.
The fact that we didn't have a Great Depression 3 years ago is largely due to the rational economic thinking of many people in positions of influence.

For sure Bogarde.

Another thing about economists is their ability to understand things that are out of our control, explain them and warn to stay out of the way.

For example free market advocates warning of tampering with the price mechanism, which contains to much information for a central authority nor a society that attempts to remove the use of currency and what it represents.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:27pm:

The fact that we didn't have a Great Depression 3 years ago is largely due to the rational economic thinking of many people in positions of influence.

I think that the fact we didn't have a recession three years ago is because of money printing or the fact that the debt ceiling is being lifted year after year.

Do you think this can keep going on for ever?

At the moment America is able to pay back the interest on its loans, each time on a new credit card, so to speak.

Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul usually ends badly, but is it possible for countries to keep printing money without it catching up to them?

I would have thought that their currency would have started to devalue by now, considering the debt, but it seems they are escaping any sort of negative reaction to their money printing.

Maybe it can just keep going on like this, forever. I don't really know.

Maybe next February, maybe they can do it a dozen more times, maybe for five more years????

I think, in hindsight, the rational economic thinkers might wish they had have had the depression at the outset, rather than forestall it for all these years, hence making the impact so much worse.

The consequences of perpetual debt are coming, 08/09 was just a taste.
The fundamental cause is not resolved.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:27pm:

No reasonably sane person would claim that economics has answers to any or all problems. Human behaviour including economic behaviour is so full of variables that prediction of outcomes is impossible. But should we stop taking measurements of volcanic activity because we can't say exactly when it will blow? Should hospitals stop taking routine observations, blood tests etc because they will not necessarily tell us when cardiac arrest is going to  occur? All discussion, debate and theorising in economics is good because it will help us to understand more & more about how the system might react. The fact that we didn't have a Great Depression 3 years ago is largely due to the rational economic thinking of many people in positions of influence.

Plenty of reasonable folks do ask that question, and are right to.

Why are economists paid if they cannot even accurately predict a trend, let alone a result?

Their theories are bunk.

Any theories that were developed before 2008 are now absolutely bunk.

The fact we are in a depression for the next 20 years means that their "rational economic thinking" means nothing.

And that makes Billy Jack sad friends.  :D :D