They ARE sciences; they follow a very similar methods and conclude things based on the evidence. One of its main faults might be that the majority of its researchers a skewed on one side
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They ARE sciences; they follow a very similar methods and conclude things based on the evidence. One of its main faults might be that the majority of its researchers a skewed on one side
when you don't have replicability you don't have science. The reason they lack replicability is because humans are vastly complicated entities and it is impossible to replicate settings and contact controlled experiments.
Some experience have been repeated... unwittingly: hyperinflation, bubbles, regulations, etc. They all show that laws of economics are called so for a reason: incentives matter and you can't create wealth out of thin air.
There are no laws in economics. What you describe it is not necessarily scientific (e,g bubbles) but the results of a system that we already set up based on some rules.
that is actually the definition of pseudoscience.
supply and demand has been pretty steady through history. THe housing bubble of the 2000s was so obvious that Austrian economists (including Ron Paul) saw it coming as early as 2003. As for the present bubble, anyone with basic knowledge of markets could have know that quadrupling the monetary base CANNOT create sustainable growth.
Mark my words: when the present bubble explodes, it<s going to be even uglier.