"Too much Maths, too little History: The problem of Economics"
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
This is a recording of the debate hosted by the LSE Economic History Department, in collaboration with the LSESU Economic History Society and the LSESU Economics Society. http://lsesueconomichistory.co.uk/ http://lsesueconomicssociety.com/ Speakers: Proposition Team - Lord Robert Skidelsky & Dr. Ha-Joon Chang Opposition Team - Prof. Steve Pisckhe & Prof. Francesco Caselli Chair - Professor James Foreman-Peck The LSE is currently the only institution to have a separate EH department. We want to encourage students and academics alike to rethink the methodologies used to explain how our world works. Do we use the theoretical and econometrical method to create models with assumptions to distil the complexities of human nature and produce measurable results? Or do we use the historical process of considering all factors to provide a more holistic explanation? More importantly, which method should be adopted to better understand increasingly complex economic phenomena in the future? We are striving to provide our students breadth that exceeds their current theoretical studies. Hence, whilst we recognise the importance of economic history in allowing us to become closer to the truth and produce more intricate portrayal of events, the significance of models and mathematics remains to be emphasised. Indeed, we wish to have this controversially named debate in order to both highlight the tension between the two disciplines and to produce a more nuanced overview in defence of the future of Economics.
Comments
-
not only economic history (description/positive) is important but also economic historiography (prescription/normative)...
Mathematical Economics (Deduction)
Experimental Economics (Induction)
Computational Economics (Abduction) -
Econ impressives non-economists when its propositions are delivered as formulae. Then they give you money. That's why it succeeds.
-
Maths is important for theory, which is useful for figuring out how to make the best of the bad situation you've got, but unfortunately it's also useful as a means of propaganda for explaining why problems we face are technical, ignoring the majority of consequential wealth transfer which does not take place in an economy, but rather through use of deception and force... eg, using economics to explain the 07-08 crash will mislead as systemic fraud isn't an economics issue, it's a problem of corruption and lack of law enforcement. Physics works because the universe enforces its laws and doesn't accept bribes to create loopholes or look the other way. When 90% of mortgages are fraudulent, 90% of the data regarding them is corrupt, there's no longer any point plugging that data into a model.
-
Medicine and engineering wouldn't have made much progress without studying corpses and crashes. Economics needs to do the same.
-
"The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time...It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.
To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university." ~ Benedict XVI -
I can't take Prof. Francesco Caselli seriously because he reminds me of Hank Azaria in The Birdcage. Sorry!!
-
Fell in love with the vision. Typical Krugam apologetics. The GFC was control fraud. See Bill Black.
-
I think mathematical modeling is important, but we need history to as this guy said to get a reality check in the models themselves.
-
4:35 "The role of history is that of a reality check." Exactly! Over the years, I've become increasingly disenchanted with theory. I'm sick of hearing what SHOULD be, or what WOULD be if only, . . . I want to know whether socio-political theories like socialism, or economic theories like Keynesianism or Classical Economics, or even the predictions of the Austrian school, actually work as claimed.
-
I wish there should be subtitles added by default.
-
i can't help but feel that the against-team fundamentally misunderstands the criticism of the for-team. it seemed like it isn't that economists don't incorporate data into their thinking, but that they don't make a conscious effort to look at or discuss facts within different different ways of thinking/mentalities/paradigms, i.e. discuss those mentalities themselves, which make all the difference as to what the facts will be taken to mean and what will be done with them, regardless of how much empircal research there de-facto is in economics.
-
The crowd just laughs and claps at everything - fucking jack-offs.
-
Maths ? History ? ... If you want to moan about something missing how about Accountancy ! They have to at least get this right.
It is an easy assumption that the Financial numbers are an accurate reflection of
reality - and they are not.
Basic Accountancy will show this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcpNqF5WyFg -
The first presenter (Professor Skidensky?) has described very clearly my own experience as a student and subsequently as a teacher. Decades ago when I began my work on a master's degree I initially chose economics but soon became very disillusioned by the reliance on mathematics and the absence of investigation into historical experience and societal norms. Nor was there any serious investigation into the validity of propositions put forward as economic theory. At once time in class I engaged my economics professor in a long exchange over the impact of land hoarding and land speculation in the U.S. economy. After about twenty minutes he simply ended our exchanged exasperated because he could not counter the observations made by evidence offered by real world observations.
Fortunately, my university offered an interdisciplinary alternative, a Master of Liberal Arts degree and I switched programs.
My course of study permitted me to read and study the great political economists, who were all historians and all moral philosophers. They examined markets, market forces, and government as a primary externality, and they reached moral judgments based on the principles of justice they embraced. Along the way, I was introduced to the writings of the great French school of political economists, the Physiocrats, and to the American Henry George. George's theory of the business cycle, based on the classical three factor model of how economies and societies function, provided to be quite useful in my later work as a market analyst in the real estate sector.
When I retired from my professional work in the mid-2000s I gave some thought to entering a doctorate program in order to acquire the credentials for college instruction. The very low probablility of ever securing a full-time teaching position pushed me in a different direction. Instead, I developed two courses to teach to senior adults in a non-credit environment. One is titled "Understanding our Political Economy." The other is "The History of Economic Thought." Although I do introduce basic economic concepts, such as factor of production and wealth distribution in these two courses, my students are not required to know or use mathematics in order to understand such concepts. I found an introductory economics textbook written by Professor Harry Gunnison Brown used to teach basic economics without even one equation in the book. Each course is two semesters in length is discussion oriented. My view is that the more I am required to lecture, the less the students are learning.
I am more than happy to share this course material with any teacher who is attracted to the interdisciplinary approach offered by the study of political economy and by reliance on the classical three factor model of wealth production and distribution. I can be reached by email at edod08034@comcast.net. -
That first question about interest rates was typical of a modern economics student. Cringe-worthy
-
Wonderful papers, thank you for posting!
-
so interesting.. I never thought about math playing such a fundamental role. While math is perfect, harmonious and beautiful, the reality of the market supply and demand is not. I like to mark this for later viewing, but the "watch later" is missing.
-
So what was the rough split of the vote at the end?
0m 0sLenght
308Rating