Can you explain something that lives and changes in time, like language, meanings, economies etc. with something (mathematical) that seems to aim to be "formally" precise, and from what you said above, doesn't allow for change, shift, "development"?Originally Posted by stringjack
microeconomics and econom etrics are all about anticipating future trends, the lonorythims and calclations are complex and a computer is most practical.
Other end of the scale is macr economics, which is closer to political sciemnce than maths.
My m,ain interest in economics is on the Macro side, but Im jnog ood at maths, so its really political science Im doing I suppose, and Im only at the foothills of learning economics ,, and ve no aspirations in relation to work in that fild its closer to a hobby for me than anything else, really its only in terms of how it applies to politics that Im interested...
I was actually thinking today, that if economics is about forecasting (is it only?), then I have to compare it to meteorology. It then occurred to me that meteorological forecasts about how the weather will be like are for 5 days the most, not for two weeks, half a year or two.Well, economic research is always going to need lots of training, just like the weather forecast.
However, a good economist can then "translate" all the maths back into English. Just as a good weather forecaster uses computer based models, and then translates it into English for the 6 one news.
If I was to compare economics to anything, I think meteorology is the best comparison.
How long did it take that a “macro developments” and its cause (is this the right term here?) like climate change was agreed to be happening and to be caused by human activity?
Is not analysis of the past very important to be able to predict? I haven’t seen much of such analysis re Irish economy/economics in the papers.
Re: mathematics and mathematical models: It was obvious without these to see that there was something wrong here, when most of the economic activity and resulting taxes were based on construction. Even tourists could see this on an annual visit, if they came at all again. I know many that didn’t anymore. There were other interesting countries emerging as to go for holidays, cheaper. No one here seemed to consider this.
It was clear since several years that too many houses and offices, and roads, were built, that a great amount of the estates remained empty. That the houses would deteriorate if not lived in. That signs promoting these had over shadowed signs that advised tourists what they could visit. That there were too many hotels and golf courses, encroaching into environmentally sensitive areas, that hotels were mostly funded by promoted wedding events and dubious courses, for which dubious funding was provided. That there was not a great amount of indigenous industry, and what was, was neglected; that since decades Ireland was dependent on foreign investment, apart from construction. That most taxes arouse from construction. That Councillors had nothing else to talk about than enable “site farming” with the false excuse, that farmers’ sons and daughters should be allowed to built on their land. That print media lived from promoting this dubious one sided activity….etc.
How could all the banks have supported this? I had to appeal a development twice on the same site, later write submissions twice again. Two applications were then withdrawn. I know that a charge was on the site by AIB, still don’t know what that means. I read that people applied for planning permission to get loans from the banks, a good while ago…Even if they didn’t really intend to build…
That the whole economic development was too quick. Many people felt like this. And why was it? Because Ireland did, and needed and had the opportunity to catch up, and didn’t realise that it just did that. In 1992 peppers were not sold by local shops because they were regarded as exotic by people…I had still to dump to my waste at a small local dump, whereas I had back in Germany already sorted waste in different bins, where recyclable waste plastics of many more kinds than are collected here now for example were indeed recycled, not sent abroad. Then Ireland overdid some of this catching up, only some, in construction particularly. All statistics said that the country was building more houses per capita than any other. Whilst it didn’t manage to create proper public transport, health services and education…
These are non-mathematical observations. Where is the official analysis?
Now, one could assume, that economics just observes, doesn’t deal with quality. Is that it? Like meteorologists, who don’t have to consider quality of the weather, for obvious reasons, as weather isn’t something humans create, at least it was up to a while ago…
Confused here, because analysis is lacking.
Yes. Mathematicians have been modelling dynamic systems for centuries.
Can you give an example for such modelling of something familiar, from the Middle Ages, and possibly before? I'm always eager to learn.
...such as?
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
I should possibly apologise for my recent rant. Had to get out, I suppose.
But here is a new thought: That economics might not really know what it does. It was compared to metereology, but metereology deals with something so far, and still I think, despite of climate change,something that happens without and despite of human decisions. Economy on the other hand seems to be a totally human activity. So the descriptions and modelling of both have to be different, probably?
Yet, economics seems to treat economy like weather. At least I haven't yet seen the kind of timeless explanations how it works that I know for example from linguistics (e.g.
Relevance theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Economics seems very time dependent, as if it explains a lottery system over time.
If you explain and describe traffic rules, some of them not outspoken, but just clear to everyone driving a car, one of the most important ones is: not to harm other drivers and pedestrians, then one can see how many of prescribed traffic rules make sense.
What would be the equivalent basic principle(s) in economics/economy?
If there are none, then it seems economy is a gamble without morals from the onset?
Or just a phenomenon, like weather?
In short: What are, if there are, the basic principles humans act on, economically?
Hmm there's alot of different conversations going on at the same time on this thread, time for some spinoff threads I think...
EDIT:
I did two:
http://www.politics.ie/economy/58556...ue-priori.html
http://www.politics.ie/chat/58550-th...ri-truths.html
Last edited by Seos; 6th April 2009 at 01:37 AM.
"She'll hold together. Hear me, baby? Hold together!"
Although there are some earlier proto-theories, things only really get going with Galileo and Newton and their contemporaries. Classical mechanics models planetary motion over time, for example, as well as the trajectory taken by a projectile like a cannonball.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote