You must log in or register to comment.
“Frickin’ beautiful.”
30 years ago when I started heading down the computer science path, nothing about it seemed evil.
Honestly at this point in my software career (~10 years), it’s not evil per se, but I don’t feel great about essentially existing to help rich people (VCs, PE, etc.) get richer. But I suppose that’s a problem that isn’t limited to IT.
I’ve had this thought for a while and I definitely agree that a lot of software I’ve built is a net negative to society as a whole and the only reason why I get paid as well as I do is because I’m helping rich assholes suck value out of society more efficiently.
For instance, I’ve worked on CMSs that automated 90% of the processes for medium-large insurance companies. Sure, it may result in a marginal price reduction for insureds (lol), but it almost certainly has led to fewer staff being hired to the benefit of the overlords. If more and more middle-class white-collar jobs gets replaced by software, that helps put downward pressure on wages. At the end of it all, are the marginally lower prices worth it to society, when everyone has a lower wage or no well paying job forcing them to participate in the gig economy and such?
It’s a depressing thought, and I’ve been trying to break into research engineering roles or something of the sort to get away from my current role but it’s been an uphill task.
In a sane world, automating away tedious work would be an unqualified good. Too bad we live in a capitalist clown world where rich assholes are able to capture 120% of the benefits of automation, leaving regular people to make up the difference.
accurate, and for the record, EPA, you can take my DCM wash bottle out of my DEAD DEGREASED HANDS
That is literally the path I took to become an Env. Scientist
Same for computer science
Economics is STEM???
Economics is science but with resources.
Economics is like ecology for the financial / resource world.
Hey, if biology qualifies, why not that?
Well, whilst it’s basically Astrology, it does decorate itself heavily with Mathematics.
(A more serious answer is: it depends on which part within Economics one is talking about. For example Behavioural Economics does use the Scientific Method).
Econometrics, data science, behavioural economics, game theory, micro and macroeconomics, public policy, all of it uses the scientific method and is empirical.
Could you clarify which part of economics you believe is not scientific?
First, Game Theory is from Mathematics, not Economics.
Next, Policy Making is Politics, not Economics. Sure, many Economists end up working in it, but I wouldn’t actually blame Economics for all the Conclusion-Driven Model Crafting that goes on in there - that abuse of Mathematics and modelling to overwhelm and swindle “people who aren’t good at maths” is a perversion of even Economics.
As for the rest, the lack of reliability of central bank forecasts of thing such as GDP Growth and Inflation would indicate that whatever they used to base their forecasts on isn’t reliable enough for publishing.
As the saying goes, Economists have predicted 8 of the last 2 Recessions.
Back in the day when I worked in Finance and followed those things, it was quite extraordinary just how much of that was flipped around and re-explained when the final numbers came out and things turned out to be very different from earlier forecasts.
More in general a lot, if not most, of Macroeconomics does not seem to be Falsifiable: whenever the mathematical models created based on the various theories in Macroeconomics fail to predict what happens (often by a huge distance) it’s invariably blamed on “unexpected factors” - if “unexpected factors” are making your models fail by a huge distance you don’t really have a theory that explains reality and are really just practicing what’s at best semi-guided guessing, same as how in the old days people predicted the weather for the next day by the color of the sunset and how much the bones of old sailors were hurting.
You could literally apply this nonsensical logic to any other field that uses maths and say “it’s mathematics, not X”. This is a non-argument.
“Policy Making is Politics”, politicians implement policies, but the ones behind the scenes who actually do the math to optimise these policies and advise politicians are economists.
“Conclusion-Driven” this is just plain false. There is an overwhelming amount of empiricism in the economics field.
“Economists have predicted 8 of the last 2 Recessions” … and have learned from these mistakes. These were described and studied in detail in my course, and you then go on to say that macroeconomics do not seem to be falsifiable. Yes there are no ways to ethically have experiments in economics, but there are plenty of workarounds to not being able to experiment. Natural experiments are rare but they do exist, as well as a myriad of other data science methods to derive conclusions from real life scenarios.
Finally, “when I worked in Finance”. Finance is a single field of economics, it does not encompass all there is to learn from economics. There is also a conflation from those who study finance courses that what is taught in economics courses is similar. It isn’t. Economics is a STEM field, while finance is a business field.
None of that makes sense.
You’re literally not using Logic (for example “we are improving” does not logically follow from “we make mistakes”), arguing against the very opposite of what I said, constructing straw-men from things I did not say so that you tear them down and trying to support your claims on one thing by making unsupported claims on a different thing.
That shit is political speech, not analysis.
Learning from mistakes is an improvement. That you’re mad about it doesn’t make it any less true. And clearly you don’t know what straw-men are given I’ve quoted you in my reply.
The claim “they learned from their mistakes” does not follow from “they made mistakes” and hence is not supported by it - for example, it’s quite common for people to make a mistake and then derive the wrong conclusion for why, hence not learning from it. You’re literally ignoring the part I disputed in your original statement (that making mistakes does not always lead to learning from them) and instead addressing something I did not dispute at all (that learning is an improvement) - absolutely, learning is an improvement, shame that “learning from one’s mistakes” is a stated desire on how things should be from Pop Culture (i.e. “you should learn from your mistakes”), rather than an observed and confirmed causal relation that’s always true.
Again, shit that isn’t Logic. You adding a claim of madness for my personality really just drives down the point on that.
As for the straw-man, selective picking of what somebody else wrote (with or without the inclusion of selective quoting) “enriched” by affirmations of your own that go beyond what the other person wrote and are not supported or even implied by it, is literally the most common way to build straw-men.
Economics is not real bro
Economics just means studying how we distribute limited goods. It breaks down when goods aren’t limited (or rather, we have more of it than we can reasonably use), but we’re not quite at that level of post-scarcity for most things. Though we might be close enough to cover the first level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
Economics as a practical discipline tends to assume capitalism. Economics can still be valid without assuming capitalism. There are tons of non-capitalist modes of distributing limited goods.
The assumption of capitalist-like structures is for a good reason. Because there is literally zero practical evidence that scarcity can exist without them in scalable economies. If you require scalability in the presence of scarcity, you will have markets, you will have currency, you will have competition, you will have investment, and so forth. At best these things can be mediated by centrally planned state capitalism. But pretending like this is not just another brand of harm reduction capitalism is rhetorically counterproductive.
The overwhelming consensus of the past century regarding Marxist economic theory is that it is incomplete at best because it takes a very naive view of scarcity. Where Marx requires revolution and then a bunch of hand waving, modern revisionism requires harm reduction and the gradual whittling down of scarcity over time. Historical materialism is certainly a pretty useful economic lens, but Marx really goes off the rails in the prescriptive conclusions he draws from that analytical framework.
Of course a hexbear tankie would think that. Sincerely hope you’re joking, but maybe I shouldn’t hope to not get severely disappointed.
That’s cool dude, except you worship it like a religion. Did you know your GDP numbers count rents and debts the same as production?
Moment of silence for those who thought environmental science doesn’t have maths. (No money is true though.)
You know it’s a complete and proper list because it excludes that pseudo-science Geology.
Geology is just a specialized field of chemistry. Biology too for that matter.
Well and chemistry is just applied electron physics
We could just skip a few steps down the list and agree it all just comes down to maths.
Nope. The most important difference: You cannot prove anything in physics. Only in maths, you have 100% certain proofs.
