Is Economics actual science? They seem to have a term/acronym

>>8369171
>Uncle is an accountant with a PhD and has run multiple successful businesses and got bored with making ass tonnes of money and became a professor
>Has both his CPA and CMA licenses
His viewpoint is 90% of universities will make Economics a social science where they teach little to dick about how economies actually run.

>>8369175
>Accountant
>Knowing anything about economics
Pick one and only one.

>>8369199
He actually knows something. He makes money anon.

kant would probably say yes.

I would say it's a proto-science.
Neoclassic school is precise in most of its ideas and in general they can be tested empirically.
But many of its ideas are wrong, as in, based on false postulates.

Some other schools of thought try to be more in touch with reality, but in doing so they become too much dependent on psychology, sociology, etc, that are not yet well structured too. In consequence, they are not very precise in its ideas (and some are hard to test empirically).

But eventually I guess it will have more or less precise ideas that can be confirmed empirically and in agreement with economic reality.


Of course, there’s also the problem of political influence, and many people that have ideas that are obviously wrong and refuse empirical test gain support because it helps one political view or another.

finance/econ here

some of micro and macro hypotheses are way of, which makes most models which rely on them uselss. Can't be arsed to type them all

rational expectations
permanent income hypothesis
money velocity and quantity theory of money
classical unemployment theory

File: melhusseinson.jpg (142KB, 634x867px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 634x867px

>Is X an Art or a Science?
>Is [semantic] part of [dialectic construct] A or B?

Yes.

>>8369484

>The amount of money is a metric used to measure knowledge.

I'm an accounting major and took honors micro/macro economics.

It's a theory social science but when you apply the theory CORRECTLY then it more or less becomes an empirical science.

I guess it's all about context and the person applying the theory.

Ask any MBA asshole and they'll all tell you:

"Economics is NOT business."

I think they say that because they're just middle/upper management and an economists could do their job in 1/5th the time just by look at the numbers for the last few quarters.

File: marx-bio.jpg (9KB, 195x274px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 195x274px

>2016
>still not realizing capitalism is unstable and rotten to the core and the entire discipline of economics is just hand wavy bourgeois apologetics

>>8369171
Isn't higher level economics heavily steeped in math and statistics? I know most intro courses focus mainly on "just trust the model" type of shit, but I was under the impression that the further you got into the more, for lack of a better word, "science-y" it became. I could be wrong though, I'm not an econ man.

File: b17ac5682abf0a05be3cf680167a2ec3c20920ded3272791562dd7f7e1f9d09e.jpg (136KB, 712x840px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 712x840px

>>8370826
>let's add a bunch of stats on a bunch of axioms that may or may not be true surely that will make it science

File: ok.png (55KB, 217x190px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 217x190px

>>8370826
pseudo-science deploys math and statistics all the time as a therapeutic activity to self assure themselves but the degree of mathiness doesn't matter if you can't make accurate predictions

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/philip-pilkington-divine-mathematics-neoclassical-economics-as-spiritual-meditation.html

>>8370818
pretty much, but marxian economics is very real.

>>8370835
Austrian school of thought were full of a bunch of pseudo-intellectual talent-less hacks, and Bohm-Bawerk got btfo by one of his former students who ended up becoming a Marxist. Modern economics as a whole is predominantly neoliberal nowadays.