Only question I have is … where does that happen?

Other than that? Meh.

Agreed. Although I am sure that there are many lovely engineers out there.

However, if I have to hear someone tell me I should use brownian motion one more time, I’ll probably start laughing at them. Brownian motion is a useful thing, but I swear it is the only answer some people give to a question 😀

Ultimately, I think the people that start criticising economics from the direction we are discussing here probably don’t understand the methodological issues in their own discipline – or else they wouldn’t be quite so cocky 😉

I have always found it interesting how many of the “strict laws of physics” still rely on wavy probability concepts (even excluding the pure randomness of quantum mechanics) … tbh on can understand probabilities more as a choice concept with imperfect information/ignorance, and so I always found the heavy use of them in classical physics an amusing result.

You always see people criticising economics in finance and investing forums. Often they will say that they started to study economics, but when they saw that it was so “flawed”, impractical, and wishy-washy they went into something with credibility, usually engineering or computer science etc.

These are the people that claim economics is a joke because it all hinges on homo economicus / EMH / gaussian distribution / etc, which is obviously not true. If half a semester of Econ101 taught them anything, it was that economics has no practical use in the real world.

They were frustrated that economics didnt have nice and correct answers to the questions posed. Or rather, that the nice and correct answers required unpractical assumptions and only worked in a strictly restricted world.

They went into econ 101 with a preconceived notion of what the field was. When the reality didnt match up with that notion they called the reality flawed! The irony is that this is exactly what they complain economists are doing!