Ahhh good point – that is good to know

Very interesting, thanks for that 🙂

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2004_06_20_norightturn_archive.html#108782439396278567

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2004/06/new-zealand-political-spectrum-ii.html

True. But the value judgment\s we make when establishing our models are incredibly transparent (eg rationality). Now rationality is not that extreme, it merely states that individuals make choices – this is as close as I can get to an objective fact before I start to confuse myself 😛

As a result, given rationality, I believe that the discipline is descriptive.

“based on the experience of western culture in the last 500 or so years”

This define the “frame” for the economic model – if I had to draw a venn diagram I would put this in the bit where the objective modeling and normative judgments collide.

I agree that the cultural background influences the structure of society, and the rules of thumb that people follow – but it does not betray the fundamental assumption that people make choices. The fundamental economic model could also be used in describing alternative social structures – but the question then has to be “what determines the social structure we are in”.

That is one of the goals of game theory – using individual decision making to explain the determination of social structures.

I would also go so far as to say that economic models often don’t assume a social structure that even matches the Western world – the models are often too stripped down and abstract for that. The goal of (micro)economists is to generalise models as much as possible – this means that it is the people applying value judgments that often determine the social structure.

“Economics as a discipline has never been as scientific and unified as it tries to portray itself now, either”

Trueish. The discipline was not as unified as it is now, in methodological terms. There are “heterodox” schools of thought out there – but I’m not sure about calling some of them economics.

“The entire economic discipline is focused on the individual.’ What about Marx?”

Modern marxist theory is focused on the individual now. I do realise that the discipline used to be a lot more holistic. However, even sociologists are moving towards methodological individualism as it has become apparent that the whole is just the sum of its parts.

Holism provides an easy way to describe things that are difficult to find using methodological individualism – however, MI allows us to explain why. This is why the focus on the individual is now so widely accepted in economics.

“The people who created economics wanted to build a better, happier world, they didn’t just want to be some sort of objective science”

Building the objective model is the first step in making a happier world. Economists specialise in description, something else might specialise in providing value judgments – add them together and you have policy.

“But yeah, I really like this blog but I find the objectivity idea kind of unstable.”

Thats cool – but I might be a hard person to sell it to 🙂

Fundamentally, I go on about objectivity not just to defend economists – but also to remind economists that their aim is to describe, not to prescribe.

Now when an economist goes out and says they like policy A better than B, they are not being an economist, they are being an individual and showing how they feel about things.

I like to sell the difference between descriptive and prescriptive, not just so people stop yelling random stuff at me, but also because I want economists to be clear that once they move from descriptive to prescriptive territory they are no longer in their area of expertise – and as a result, maybe should not be as confident with what they are saying 😉

*******

I realise I am often prescriptive on the blog – however, I try to make it clear that I am stating my opinion. Furthermore, I try to make my assumptions as transparent as possible.

“Then, Mises as a citizen chooses laissez-faire liberalism because he is interested in achieving these ends.”

Very good, so Mises has a different interpretation of the trade-off between economic and individual freedom than I do, but he still puts a positive weight on both – sounds like the same description to me.

Hi Tono

Ultimately, points A and B are issues where you are not going to find an economics consensus because they rely on the value that the individual places on them. The economic model provides a stellar way of setting up the issue, but it can’t answer the questions “what is the value of the environment” and “what is the best level of redistribution”.

“I think this is because the right has championed neo-liberal economics, and used it to justify it’s values”

Extremely good point – I was hoping someone would say this.

I get the impression that people are following a rule of thumb to attack “economists” rather than focusing on the actual group who tries to push policies they don’t agree with – in that sense the economics profession is a straw man, rather than the cause of the problem.

“A personal note on this: when I took Econ 111 it was very right wing”

That is interesting – it is not like that at Vic. In the whole 6 week micro component there is 2 weeks on externalities, taxes, and regulation and 1 week on oligopoly. It must just depend on the economics school it seems.

While your non-partisan approach to this blog is very refreshing, I find the assertion you sometimes make that economics is an objective science dubious at the least. Modern economists often make this claim, but for one thing, it’s not objective, nothing is.

Economics is based on a whole set of cultural values and assumptions – like the assumption that all people are ‘rational,’ in a narrow sense based on the experience of western culture in the last 500 or so years. This does not discount economics at all, but I believe economics needs to be more interdisciplinary and pragmatic; it’s religious adherence to it’s own principles is restricting, and out of date.

Economics as a discipline has never been as scientific and unified as it tries to portray itself now, either. You make a number of generalisations about ‘economics’ when you really mean ‘neo-liberal economics’- a school of economics that has only been dominant for the last 30 years (if that). e.g. ‘The entire economic discipline is focused on the individual.’ What about Marx?

Notice how at most Universities economics is an ARTS subject, not just a business subject. The people who created economics wanted to build a better, happier world, they didn’t just want to be some sort of objective science.

Okay I’m ranting, I stayed up too late, sorry. But yeah, I really like this blog but I find the objectivity idea kind of unstable.