Видео

Wonderful discussion

Uhm - sorry... but neither history nor maths is enough to understand economy. And especially not of you leave one of the two aside. You need maths, history... psychology, sociology, some understanding of natural laws (physics, chemistry and also biology) and also law and several other stuff. Its kind of sad that economists don't understand how absurdly simplistic many of their basic assumptions are.

Business Schools teach economics for overspecilization and frame students deliberately NOT to represent the "pluralism".. . Instead we have to be in need of other logics to economics...

Thank god someone with a respectable, British accent said it. Economics isn't just math. Psychology and Sociology have outsized roles in determining where money goes, and what happens as a result. Our maths are undeveloped for economics, a system dramatically dependent on people's choices about things like status, survival, and the feel good drugs (Dopamine, Serotonin, Endorphins).

Harris Robert Garcia Scott Robinson Gary

Economics sounds less like an acedemic field, more like dogma......

White Ruth Harris John Robinson Anthony

White Kimberly Rodriguez Paul Brown Amy

Great presentation!

Simply Brilliant!

Sir Madam No God. No Religion. This is TRUTH ❤️👍 All religions are stories and are made up of imagination and nothing else. Nothing else. 150 million years ago dinosaurs 🦖🦕 lived here. Bacteria 🦠 to Human beings are because of evolution 🧬 Dr Carl Sagan and his videos and wickepedia RUclips. Dr Richard Dawkins Sun 🔆🌞 and Earth 🌎🌍

Never thought about Singapore like this...

Yes, because the numbers are easy to simulate and put on theory, but you can not create history; you have to let the wheel drill.

Iam fucked up with calculus and optimizations but it's genuinely important for 4 model data

Guys obviously wrong cuz governance can also be modeled

1:25:35 you morons need to figure out that SDIC in econometrics is due to lossy compression of historical narratives as data to accelerate the production rate of society and by extension the coding rate of information compression to the point of degrading source fidelity causing boom bust cycles. Great work causing unwanted pregnancies as a stop gap measure to your leaky models. Make lossless compression models if you can but the grant money would probably dry up

Spitting BARS!

Jackson Deborah Hernandez Gary Perez Edward

its simple use the economic model to generate the most profit and growth applicable to the historical period and country. Thus, increasing the power of the elite.

I’m not an economist, but I think you have a point, Dr. Skidelski, good sir. Even in the mathematics curriculum, there’s not a commonly accepted inclusion of the history of mathematics and that is atrocious. In fact, this is true of most disciplines other than history itself and political science is, I think, almost as good as history itself. I could be not quite correct, as I’m not ah historian or a political scientist- perhaps historians and political scientists would disagree with me and suggest that even in their disciplines, there is not enough “history of history” or “history of political science” in the standard curricula of those disciplines either. In any case, many - far too many - members of society seem to view history as a useless discipline, so they aren’t willing to pay tuition for more history courses than a skeletal minimum for existence in a civil society. This contention of mine applies to students, parents, and accreditation agencies. I worked in Mathematical Logic for my PhD, and my views in that direction were heavily influenced by authors I never personally met, including especially Alan B. Slomson and John Lane Bell. When I was introduced to some of the work of John Bell, I was a student unfamiliar with economics, so it made an impression on me that Bell was listed as affiliated with the London School of Economics.

Like most debates, this one is premised on a false dichotomy - ie, math OR history. If u want to understand the world, every tool is useful - ie math AND history. The key is just to avoid falling into the trap of valuing just one tool. In general, fields benefit from intellectual and methodological pluralism. Econometricians need to know a little more economic history and economic historians need to know some math. That said, many economists love maths a bit too much. But they don’t need less of it. They just need to appreciate that there are other awesome tools from academia and industry.

Brilliant

The same could be said of public education

9 years ago, nothing happened.

Of course the math guy mantiones behavioral economics LOL the way math captured economics, it did the same with psychology. behavioral economics is basically ruined by mathematics, it is a basic behavioural and cognitive psychology kidnapped by mathematics.

Analyzing history is still math. All good here 👍

Your languge bear French

The social system is not "too complex for reliable proofs", but rather prescientific, awaiting a paradigm breakthrough.

The capital and labour cannot be separated.

People don't generally study economics to "understand how economies work". They generally begin the study in order to figure out how to make a living and be successful in business. Academics make a false presumption because economists as they are, generally are hired by governments, which further biases the field because academics pander to support one party or another in order to gain funding in an educational system that has substantially been nationalized.

Include tax vs rent

No, we also have sufficient statistics, which is also maths, but have nothing to do with proofs and truths, but everything to do with that complex society and its complex human beings.

Mine bluster compensate his wrong to economy ,

All the subjects to read its bear history.

This was crucial. Thank you.

Who won??

Too few ethics. Economics should not be separated from the needs of families.

And too little questioning about the assumptions on which maths applied to economics are based.

Where’s Popper?

1:22:00, the acupuncture argument nicely dismantled by the two maths guys. says it all

How some of the professors got their PHDs? No idea.

Too much unnecessary math, statistics, and probability.

The second guy was the clear example of the dumb arrogance in economics.

It's funny. Math as a thinking tool 🤔. I usually cook up all the possibilities and then don't use math , but common sense 😂😅

Economics has become the new religion. We worship it. We serve it. Blasphemy to suggest an end to continuous growth.

As opposed to an acupuncturist, I would introduce the analogy of the unorthodox boxer. In a boxing tournament, most boxers are right handed, and taught with an orthodox style. This means that on occasion, when they encounter an unorthodox boxer who is left perhaps, or maybe just one of the two, they also encounter extreme difficulty in predicting punches and fight technique. Hence the predictive powers of the orthodox boxer is equal to the normative enforcement of orthodox boxing. Even if the boxer is slightly less skilled, unorthodox style has such a paralysing effect on an orthodox boxers predictive capacity that the playing field is essentially equalled out. Therefore, an orthodox boxers predictive capacity is a self sustained, self regulating system predicated upon the normativity of boxing orthodoxy in a much wider system of predominantly orthodox boxers. A game theorist would say that the unorthodox boxer introduces an aspect of chaos into the system that checks the integrity of the wider system, usually getting very far and doing much damage before the rest of the system can recognise a pattern unique to that single actor. Similarly, rigorous mathematical modelling in economics works very well predictively in things like day trading because the vast majority of day traders are all running algorithmic networks that use the same maths and the same models to inform the same decision making. Every now and then, someone who isn’t doing this or who isn’t very mathematically literate, or even a billionaire shorting a particular market, causes all of these algorithms to be wildly flawed and people lose massive amounts of money. The system is again self sustaining and self regulated, predicated upon the normativity of the use of algorithms to assist day trading. It is also therefore equally subject to massive miscalculations as soon as even a single piece deviates from the set calculations, or even if a variable is at play that isn’t being accounted for, like a brewing international conflict that causes a country to raise its oil prices which then has enormous and fast acting knock on effects, etc., Maths in economics can only do so much, and the larger the scale (the more macro), the more subjective the human decision making becomes and the less maths has anything to do at all with economic occurrences.

The assumption that exponential growth is sustainable indefinitely and there are no boundary conditions is so ludicrous that it makes all modern economics a nonsense. It is left with just a menu of correlations that can be rolled out like a priest or muse to confuse or placate .. as long as a high salary is forthcoming as a precondition for the revelation.

Math in economics is junk science. It is an attempt to mascerade as hard science when in reality it is pure ideology and wishful thinking.

POLITICAL ECONOMY used to be the name of this Social Science! The big mathematical con takes the "Political" out of the equation. Homo oeconomicus, you bet! I just note that that the Walras' & Pareto's of this world, the German and Austrian schools appeared shortly after Marx's Capital and elegantly buried the concept of value created by labour, by value originating in the eye of the the last marginal buyer! The ayes have it...and free markets will set you free! You can fool most of the people most of the time...QED!

Something every economist should be aware of. Sadly, the questioning and curious spirit is being shut down in the universities. We see more and more dogma being thought in the faculties. I don't think this is something happening only to economics faculties, but to the education in general. Nevertheless, my last comment is: during the five years of bachelor I had in economics, there was not even one lecture in which ideas were discussed and solutions debated; it was always about learning proofs and models, why those ones? no one knew, why this way? why is this useful in our society/environment? no clue. The best student was always the one who could do Lagrangians and Hammiltonians the fastest. That was the 'most promising economist' of our cohortl; opinions about economic systems? what for, we need data to run models...