Poverty is due to moral lacking

[DuncanONeil]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

[lucy]

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[DuncanONeil]

All theories are subject to testing!

Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[Thorne]

All theories are subject to testing!

Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[DuncanONeil]

Factually true I agree. But this could be considered a form of testing.

Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[thir]

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

Well, reality - a world full of different and increasingly complicated and interrelated economies and wheather and natural disasters and politcal changes and wars and what not - is far too complicated for any theories.

A bigger problem is that economics are not science, a bunch of theories does not science make. Science means proving stuff, in ways that can be dublicated.

Further more, said theories are based on idelogies about what aught to happen if you do X Y and Z, sort of in a lab with no distraction from real life.

[DuncanONeil]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!

Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[DuncanONeil]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!

Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[Thorne]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!

Yes, AGW is a theory: which means there is ample evidence for it. It explains that evidence better than any other speculation by deniers. While it is not the ONLY mechanism driving climate change, it is currently the best explanation for the data being found. Unlike the idiotic rationalizations thrown out by deniers, especially the "God will protect us" group, like Perry and Bachmann.

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry but I don't think the evidence supports this theory in the least. Think it more hubris than science.

Yes, AGW is a theory: ... While it is not the ONLY mechanism driving climate change, it is currently the best explanation for the data being found.