Author Topic: Boeing 737 Max again, it would be nice if the windows [door plugs] stayed in!  (Read 127176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7314
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
I dislike economists and find them theorists full of bullshit.
If we exclude mathematical economics (which tends to be done by mathematicians and not economists, although there is really no reason why; it and game theory are quite approachable and usable for problem solving by us non-mathematicians), then I'd go even further, and call them fabulists, manipulators, and snake-oil peddlers.  The humanist-educated economists are plain gamblers in disguise.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
Economists are like control systems engineers tasked with controlling a system that is only partly observable and partly controllable.  I know of many attempts to make portions of economics rigorous, and the only ones I am familiar with have been successful only in very limited situations.  The problem is too complex.  The basic ideas are qualitatively correct.  Things like a price elasticity curve really have some basis in reality.  But the actuality is that the function is far more complex than presented in basic economic classes.  It is never single input, single output.  It varies not just parametrically but functionally over time and space.  And more.

We are fortunate in electronics.  Things like Ohms Law and the diode curve apply in a wide variety of applications.  Economists are dealing with a much more difficult problem.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline tom66

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7393
  • Country: gb
  • Professional HW / FPGA / Embedded Engr. & Hobbyist
Whenever anyone brings up economics as a science I think of this.  Market predictions vs market outcomes...
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, Geoff-AU, AVGresponding

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7314
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Economists are like control systems engineers tasked with controlling a system that is only partly observable and partly controllable.
Those applying mathematical economics, yes.  But the majority of economists I know of simply ignore the math and instead use only Excel and their gut feelings.  And they're not even ashamed of doing so!

A fun "experiment" when talking to an "economist" is to ask them whether they are familiar with R, Mathematica, Maple, or Matlab.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
Economists are like control systems engineers tasked with controlling a system that is only partly observable and partly controllable.
Those applying mathematical economics, yes.  But the majority of economists I know of simply ignore the math and instead use only Excel and their gut feelings.  And they're not even ashamed of doing so!

A fun "experiment" when talking to an "economist" is to ask them whether they are familiar with R, Mathematica, Maple, or Matlab.

I guess I have a language distinction.  What you call mathematical economists I call an economist.  And what you call "most economist" can be covered by a variety of terms.  Economic advisor,  stock analyst and charleton are a few of them.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nominal Animal

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15956
  • Country: fr
There is a difference between analyzing economics (which is essentially math-based modeling) and devising economic doctrines, which is essentially a political matter.
"Economists" in the common sense are supposed to do both, but certainly very few people are able to do both things effectively, and even when they seemingly base their doctrines on hard data, we know how that bridge between science and politics is fragile.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2711
  • Country: fi
Whenever anyone brings up economics as a science I think of this.  Market predictions vs market outcomes...

So optimism when low and pessimism when high.
Not very objective.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9118
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
The original term for what we call “economics” now was “political economy”, an interesting term for that study.
 

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4428
  • Country: gb
I once joined a meeting in an investment bank which was presented by one of the banks leading economists.  It was in response to the situation with war in Europe.

I was pretty impressed to be honest.  Not just the sheer amount of empirical data they were using to make their assessments but all the intermediate processed reports they had generated for themselves and clients on same.  They didnt just say, "Ukraine makes grain", they had data tracking all the steps in the global grain market and historic comparisons with data for other similar events and how they impacted price and availability.

The wonder was...  the total aggregate amount of market data that one of these giants has must be worth millions a day.  No government is going to pay for that and so if the banks are not regulatory required to provide it (they aren't) ... the governments own economists have no option but to consult the banks which do.  Even if they are in DIRECT conflict of interest as market participants, such as during the sale of Royal Mail.

The know way too much.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Online Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7314
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
A fun "experiment" when talking to an "economist" is to ask them whether they are familiar with R, Mathematica, Maple, or Matlab.
I guess I have a language distinction.  What you call mathematical economists I call an economist.
Yep.  I'm mostly poking this at people who call themselves economists here, with zero math or statistics skills, and not the people who do actual research.  You know, the talking head and social types who manage to fool media and small companies.  Probably does not fly elsewhere in the world, I guess.

The few people I know that do market analysis and economic research and work for banks and such, are definitely closer to mathematicians than I am!
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9118
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
There is also a difference between scientists (who write papers for scientific journals) and science writers (who write for newspapers with more or less accuracy).
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10177
  • Country: gb
There is also a difference between scientists (who write papers for scientific journals) and science writers (who write for newspapers with more or less accuracy).
I think the scale for science writers is "little or no accuracy".
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9118
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
There have been good science writers, e.g. Isaac Asimov in his non-fiction writing.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10177
  • Country: gb
There have been good science writers, e.g. Isaac Asimov in his non-fiction writing.
He was a scientist who also did some popular writing. That's a different category.
 

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4428
  • Country: gb
My "gather" as a layman on economics...

The "scientific" or "academic" economics doesn't seem to actually fit reality.
However.
The real world economics doesn't seem to fit the science.

Leads me to believe it's not a science, but sociology by numbers.
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10177
  • Country: gb
My "gather" as a layman on economics...

The "scientific" or "academic" economics doesn't seem to actually fit reality.
However.
The real world economics doesn't seem to fit the science.

Leads me to believe it's not a science, but sociology by numbers.
Most economics is based on the idea that consumers are totally rational actors, and the availability of cheap and plentiful energy has little impact on economic growth. So, its not based on any analysis of the real world.
 

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4428
  • Country: gb
My "gather" as a layman on economics...

The "scientific" or "academic" economics doesn't seem to actually fit reality.
However.
The real world economics doesn't seem to fit the science.

Leads me to believe it's not a science, but sociology by numbers.
Most economics is based on the idea that consumers are totally rational actors, and the availability of cheap and plentiful energy has little impact on economic growth. So, its not based on any analysis of the real world.

Epic.  I heard this opinion (or the related core) from https://www.youtube.com/@RichardJMurphy (Prof economics Sheffield)

When trying to explain modern economics, in his own opinionated way, he started out with, paraphrase: "Do not assume that things happen for any reason, let alone a logical or rational one.  That is the mistake of classical economics."

EDIT:  A thought occurred.  If it's true that economics has not yet grasped it, marketing certainly has.  That people can be prompted to be irational, emotional, ilogical and they will even, if you play your wording right, believe outright lies.

The economics which might state "If the price of X changes in direction Y, then the consumer will respond accordingly by doing Z" are not considering that modern day marketing makes that completely invalid.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2025, 03:04:10 pm by paulca »
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10177
  • Country: gb
My "gather" as a layman on economics...

The "scientific" or "academic" economics doesn't seem to actually fit reality.
However.
The real world economics doesn't seem to fit the science.

Leads me to believe it's not a science, but sociology by numbers.
Most economics is based on the idea that consumers are totally rational actors, and the availability of cheap and plentiful energy has little impact on economic growth. So, its not based on any analysis of the real world.

Epic.  I heard this opinion (or the related core) from https://www.youtube.com/@RichardJMurphy (Prof economics Sheffield)

When trying to explain modern economics, in his own opinionated way, he started out with, paraphrase: "Do not assume that things happen for any reason, let alone a logical or rational one.  That is the mistake of classical economics."
People don't associate me with that ideological idiot. Many economists will point out the same two points I made. Its not opinion. Its easily verified by looking at most economics literature.   The thing is that having pointed out that the basis of their ideas is bogus they carry on with them.
 

Offline paulca

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4428
  • Country: gb
My "gather" as a layman on economics...

The "scientific" or "academic" economics doesn't seem to actually fit reality.
However.
The real world economics doesn't seem to fit the science.

Leads me to believe it's not a science, but sociology by numbers.
Most economics is based on the idea that consumers are totally rational actors, and the availability of cheap and plentiful energy has little impact on economic growth. So, its not based on any analysis of the real world.

Epic.  I heard this opinion (or the related core) from https://www.youtube.com/@RichardJMurphy (Prof economics Sheffield)

When trying to explain modern economics, in his own opinionated way, he started out with, paraphrase: "Do not assume that things happen for any reason, let alone a logical or rational one.  That is the mistake of classical economics."
People don't associate me with that ideological idiot. Many economists will point out the same two points I made. Its not opinion. Its easily verified by looking at most economics literature.   The thing is that having pointed out that the basis of their ideas is bogus they carry on with them.

On Mr. Murphy.  He is interesting to listen to.  However, it's not lost on me that he seems to stand in opposition with a lot of what "IS" happening.

Ideology, a common trait in professors in academia.   Sort of part of the parcel I would think.

"What could possibly go wrong?"
Current Open Projects:  STM32F411RE+ESP32+TFT for home IoT (NoT) projects.  Child's advent xmas countdown toy.  Digital audio routing board.
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
A perceptive observer will recognize that consumers are neither perfectly rational nor perfectly irrational.  Yet another of the difficulties that make economics a developing, not a solved science.

Conceptually it seems possible to model the effects of marketing, perhaps something analogous to noise in our area of expertise.  I have no idea how much work is being done in that area.

The fact that introductory texts only treat the ideal case is no more obnoxious than the lumped parameter models we use that make things like Spice possible. 
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10177
  • Country: gb
A perceptive observer will recognize that consumers are neither perfectly rational nor perfectly irrational.  Yet another of the difficulties that make economics a developing, not a solved science.

Conceptually it seems possible to model the effects of marketing, perhaps something analogous to noise in our area of expertise.  I have no idea how much work is being done in that area.

The fact that introductory texts only treat the ideal case is no more obnoxious than the lumped parameter models we use that make things like Spice possible.
The difference is the lumped parameter models are called lumped to highlight from the outset the limitations they have. Economics treats the perfectly rational actor, with no biases and complete knowledge of the market and its future prospects as a given. They then whisper in dark corners about the limitations of their BS.
 

Offline floobydust

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7765
  • Country: ca
I think any decent economists (there must be some) are working for the big investment firms, towards predicting direction and side effects on the economy, commodities etc. for traders to profit from.
What I find strange is you can search the Internet for things like "oil prices" etc. and find some articles on why they are going up, as well as articles on why they are going down. People are generally clueless at forecasting.

Why is Boeing on their second bean counter CEO? It's all about managing beans now? Or is that they are useful idiots.
 

Offline jfiresto

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 903
  • Country: de
... Economics treats the perfectly rational actor, with no biases and complete knowledge of the market and its future prospects as a given. They then whisper in dark corners about the limitations of their BS....
What school of economics are you thinking of? The theoclassical, sorry, neoclassical economics we were taught in the early 1980s already included local markets and incomplete information.
-John
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5621
  • Country: us
A perceptive observer will recognize that consumers are neither perfectly rational nor perfectly irrational.  Yet another of the difficulties that make economics a developing, not a solved science.

Conceptually it seems possible to model the effects of marketing, perhaps something analogous to noise in our area of expertise.  I have no idea how much work is being done in that area.

The fact that introductory texts only treat the ideal case is no more obnoxious than the lumped parameter models we use that make things like Spice possible.
The difference is the lumped parameter models are called lumped to highlight from the outset the limitations they have. Economics treats the perfectly rational actor, with no biases and complete knowledge of the market and its future prospects as a given. They then whisper in dark corners about the limitations of their BS.

I have only encountered the lumped description in upper division texts.  The ones that start people off teach ohms law, then capacitors and inductors.  Sometime later phasors or complex impedances come into play.  And until fairly recently (roughly the turn of the century) those who did much more than lumped parameter analysis were rare and considered masters of the dark arts by most practicing engineers.  At my university even upper division courses taught antennas, wave guides and s parameters as a completely different kettle of fish than the "regular" electronics.  Of course back in those ancient days digital circuit clocks were most frequently measured in single digit megahertz and only military guys and researchers were doing anything above a GHz. 

I think you are of an age to remember when people starting to use high speed TTL were often confused by the need to control reflections, match impedances and such things.  We aren't that different than the economists.  They have a significantly harder problem.  In some ways our world boils down to the four Maxwell equations and we can partition time varying properties and non-linearities into controlled corners.  There is no evidence that the economists can.  Their Maxwell hasn't published yet.
 

Offline SiliconWizard

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15956
  • Country: fr
Why is Boeing on their second bean counter CEO? It's all about managing beans now? Or is that they are useful idiots.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf