Image: Kevin Zhengli
Predicting the future is fraught with difficulty given the immense complexity of human behavior. The general failure of most economists to predict the Global Economic Crisis (GEC) has prompted a barrage of criticism, even Queen Elizabeth II whose personal investment portfolio lost 25 million pounds was moved to grill a group of economists as to why they were taken by surprise.
David Brooks, a commentator who writes for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, has written a provocative article that not only gives a brief history of economics in five acts, but also argues that the “dismal science” needs to learn from the historian, the psychologist and the novelist.
Brooks argues that economics at first mimicked science and built models populated by rational and utility-maximizing individuals. This stick figure view of people making economic decisions has, according to Brooks, been replaced by a growing understanding that economic actors are not perfectly rational, that people are not always prodded into action by narrow self-interest and that decision-making is prone to biases.
His thesis is that these new insights came too late and economics not only failed to predict but actually contributed to the GEC which destroyed $50 trillion in global wealth and caused untold human suffering.
Brooks argues that economics is now in a period of deep soul searching. Is economics a science? Should it be a science? Has economics as a discipline made any real progress over the last two centuries? Is economics dead? Should economics abandon model making? Will understanding only come when economics enters the “world of emotion, social relationships, imagination love and virtue”?
For students: After reading the article by Brooks consider the question as to what direction you think Economics should take so that it survives as a legitimate means of understanding human society.
Tags: dismal science, Economics, Global Economic Crisis, macroeconomics, models, TOK
This article really got me thinking. Many say that History is dead however, maybe it is that economics is dead. And that History can help us much more to predict the future then Economics is.
I agree with Brooks when says that economics is now in a period of deep soul searching. I think in order for the field to succeed, economics needs to become “less rigid” and find a way to somehow intertwine emotion, social relationships, imagination, love, and virtue.
While I believe words hold much value in economics, numbers have more meaning and substance as they provide a black/white view. They give definite, specific statistics that allow people to understand the given information better than vague words.
Economics has to take the step into psychology. Its a study of human interaction, so it cannot depend 100% on the solidity of mathamatics. In order to fully understand, and therefore predict human interaction in the market lace, econoics must branch into the study of human decision making, the logical and the illogical. hopefully, by broadening their studies, economist can save their science and their world.
I think all fields of knowledge have some uncertainties and some flaws, and the flaws of economics are appearing to the whole world today. History has some guessing, but we cannot really tell whether or not we are wrong in our guessing; but the flaws of economics have effects in the future and we can see them now. I think we need numbers in order to really quantify things and be able to compare countries, economies and so on. However, depending only on numbers does not seem to be the solution, since it is easy change the meaning of numbers to make them say what we want them to say. Nevertheless, I don’t think it is the problem of numbers or words that lead to the failure of economics, but the models that economists apply to these numbers. Economists make many assumptions in their models, and that it what lead to its failure.
Economics is fun. Economics is not accurate. Economics is about as refined and accurate as the subtle science of time traveling. Economics needs to somehow take the human factor into account, as this variable can be polemic or vary on any point of the spectrum. Economics works better when people are designed to act in specific ways to every specific situation. We need tyranny.
I think that in order to survive as a way to understand human society, I think it needs to take into account human qualities. For example, as outlined in the article above, the understanding that economic actors are not perfectly rational. Rather than rigid models that assume unrealistic actions, economics need to be more flexible and widen their scope in order to survive.
Economics is a social science, and should combine both aspects of Numbers and Words. It is good to create models to ‘predict’ trends in the Economy, that are only applicable if humans actions (which is what the ‘social’ part of ‘social science’ implies) never change: however, human actions do change, and therefore, economics should take into account that the Number aspect only claims either true or false for the ‘science’ of ‘social science’ and economists now must move towards the ‘social’ aspect in the Word aspect.
I believe Economics is similar to History in the fact that events reoccur and people never learn and advance from their mistakes. Despite this Historians learn from the past, and Economists do the same in order to predict future movements of Economy. Economics can try and quantify intangible aspects of human life such as love, DIY actions, emotional actions since it is already such a multi-dimensional world.
I agree with this point of view. I think that economics is very theoretical and there are many flaws to it. When dealing with the choices that people make, there is no way to be 100% sure about the future of peoples behaviour. I think that with economics, since it deals with choices, it it difficult to accurately determine future choices without entering the “world of emotions, social relationships, imagination love nd virtue”.
As Dr. Anthony mentioned in this post, Economics failed to save the world economy as it failed to predict and even destroyed trillions of money. I think economics should be more accurate and consider possible exceptions more because economics cannot be predicted only by the past examples.
I think economics should learn more from history and incorporate human emotion and personality more than just numbers an generalizations.Although it would make economics more complicated, I think it would actually make it more accurate. If economics disregard emotion completely, economics would never be able to predict global economic activity as the complicated nature of human beings would throw everything off.
I think that economics is not going to die down ever because we use it everyday. Though history seems to be getting old, thats what it is, and it will keep getting old. History is something that would never change, but economics changes all the time. Since it is more involved in our everyday lives, I think economics, and numbers are more important
I think economics should not be as strict as a science. Economics is a study of how people interact. I would say it is more of history than a science. Just as history often repeats itself, I assume economics will begin to repeat itself. We should look it as more of a history and not a science.
I think economics should learn from history and learn form their mistakes. I also think that sometimes Economics is so centered on reaching equilibrium that sometimes they forget about the outliers and the fact that humans are all different and we can:t be predicted on what we do. Logically, no numbers! Words maybe but then again words cause so much misunderstanding.
I agree with Brooks’ point of view as I think that Economics is very rational and theoretical. There is a lot of variance in humans and this should be taken into consideration and so, economists could potentially learn from historians, novelists and psychologists. The fact economics cannot work alone is supported by its failure to save the world’s economies.
Economics hasn’t failed. Serious? The world is supposed me imbued with flaws and foibles. It’s not like other fields of study are immune to public castigation. Other fields of study have failed equally miserably. It’s just that more things are at stake in economics.
I believe that economics is not yet “dead”, but it is dying. We have to save economics from dying. I don’t think that abandoning model making would be a good idea, but model making (based on numbers) and emotions and imagination would help save economics.
They are both important, and the final decision just comes down to which an individual thinks would explain all, more in depth. To me, I personally find words more effect, although numbers can explain some in a way words cannot (and they can make concepts simpler).
As stated in the article, economists should look back at past events and carefully study them in order to predict such disasters. Theses two topics are closely related, and therefore a thorough understanding of both subjects is key.
I think that economics should incorporate numbers and words. The words are more for the theories and the numbers are for calculating data. I also think that economics is definitely a science, but has a little bit of history too. However, I don’t agree with the article where it says its an art. Yes, it can be divided into acts if you think creatively , but I still think its not an art.
HAH! There is nothing wrong with the study of economics. Real world economics is a complex thing, and it requires complexity. We run into problems when people disregard/ignore the minor details. If anyone needs examples I have plenty.
I agree that economics should be integrated with other studies such as psychology, history, and etc. It gives more explanations and understanding of what is happening around the world compared to just economics.
I personally like the structure of Brook’s article. I think it is really effective in showing the evolution of economics. It might be true that economics is considered more of an art than a science but despite this change, we should not expect less from economists. Economists can continue to construct “abstract and elaborate models” to find out exactly where economics is moving.
[...] A more lighted hearted approach to summing up economics in one picture. Economics past and it s future are discussed in a previous blog post “Whereto the dismal science”. [...]
[...] A more lighted hearted approach to summing up economics in one picture. Read the blog post “Whereto the dismal science” and write a response by adding a [...]
I like how the author of this article bring in science and tries to integrate the two studies, it is a really in depth article and brings out the flaws in decision making in the economics world today that people make and think.
I do not think that economics should advance in the field of science as Brooks argued, as science has strict rules and predictable outcomes. Economics is clearly not predictable (with the present economic crisis as evidence) and it certainly does not abide by strict rules, although economists have tried to create them. Rather, economics should start viewing from a more psychological perspective. Like Brooks wrote, economics cannot be bound by models and other predictable outcomes; therefore, by taking a psychological standpoint, economists would be able to understand why such behavior occurs, how it manifested, and the possible results of one.
Currently, there are flaws in Economics; the models fail to predict the future crisis. This, i believe, is because economists depend too much on facts and data that are gathered and overlook emotion and psychology. In order to be successful, however, economists have to consider “the world of emotion, social relationships, imagination, love and virtue.” I agree with Brooks that Economics should be realistic, “but it will be an art, not a science.”
Economics may have a similar concept to science, but it cannot be treated the same way as the natural sciences, where everything is rational and logically explainable. The movement of the economy is based on people’s incentives, which are created by their purpose and bias. It is impossible to recreate and predict those human incentives in the same way as analyzing chemical reactions.
In a way, I think that economy is sort of like a science. In economics, I think that concepts similar to science are incorporated into many aspects, such as predicting the future. In predicting the future, people have to experiment with many things until they get to a right hypothesis, which gets tested as time passes. In the case of the GED, their hypothesis was proven wrong.
Economics is still not dead, but is on the verge of dying. For it to survive, I believe that it should adopt different aspects from Psychology and History since numbers can’t always reveal the truth. The mistakes that Economics made, such as the GEC, are just the steps to success.
I believe that economics and the predictions derived by economists have become more accurate over the past years but that they are still not fool proof, as is made evident by the recent economic downturn. I think that because of this recent upset that economics can not be considered a science. It is not a science because sciences deal with facts and rules that can not be broken. Economics includes both of these things as well, but the rules of economics can be broken, and often are, to allow for new predictions and models to be made. Economics is a study, a study of human interaction and and the resources available to our population.
I do agree with Brooks’ point that economics is going in a period of deep soul searching; however, I do not think that it has yet failed. If economics would take a step into psychology to consider the relationships with human beings, it would probably be better. I believe that economics can be science as well depending on people’s independent views.
I agree with Brooks, especially with him saying that economists have to review their field of expertise. Should economists want their study to remain legitimate, it has to be reshaped so that it takes in account actual human nature, not abstract models.
The concept of a homo oeconomicus, a model in the study of economics, for instance, is very inapt. Humans are not economical creatures, able to rationally act in their self-interest; they are rather, as Paul Krugman says, “strongly influenced by the behaviour of others and suffer from irrational exuberance, unwarranted panic, loss aversion, and ill-considered extrapolations from small samples.” (Coleman)
In order for economics to remain a legitimate field of study, it needs to begin to incorporate a more generalist study of humans by including historical, psychological, anthropological and philosophical aspects. Only then will economy be able to remain a means of understanding human society.
Coleman, William. ‘Beyond Krugman to Behavioural Keynes’ in Agenda, Volume 17, Number 1, 2010 by edited by William Coleman | ANU E Press. (n.d.). . Retrieved August 24, 2010, from http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Agenda,+Volume+17,+Number+1,+2010/254/08-mcdonald.xhtml#footnote-13458-1
Economics is something that is not 100% predictable and will and has been changing for the past decades. Some may profit and some may lose, but as recent crisis show that economics is, in fact ‘failing’. I agree what Brooks states that it is in a period of “deep soul searching,” and if this economy continues the way it is, it will not be successful for long, and things are needed to be able to keep a stable economy without any failures.
Whether Economics stands as a science or not, one matter must always be considered: Economics requires people, and the thoughts they carry. With this in mind economics should look to its side and ask help from fellow sciences. Economics is heavily dependent on the way people think, these days many people call it a social science. Economics should consider taking models and valuable ideas from psychology – the study of human mental functions and behaviors. If this idea seems too “far out” and “impractical”, then economics should at least add a more influential “social” factor to the economical models.
Economics in my opinion, needs to stay away from science because if economics turns into a science it is impossible to change a decision that has already been made and evidence may be hard to provide. Economics, in order to grow needs to learn the way the human mind works. It needs to know what people want in order for the Economy to grow in large numbers, they need resources as well. The global economy doesnt grow or decline automatically, unemployment, bad ideas, and most importantly when the ideas fail is what causes the economy to drop. People making bad decisions and not buying thing causes the economy to drop. In my opinion, globally people should be encouraged to invest in their government so that if the economy boosts their country will be the richest.
I strongly agree with the statement that “economics needs to learn from the historian, the psychologists and the novelist”. I believe that economics is all about how humans respond to the world with their money and psychology plays big role in the field. However, I do not think Economics to be categorized as natural science because it is full of exceptions. Economics should focus on human behavior, and not on numerical values.
I basically agree with
his argument that economic principles should be reviewed and studied further in order for economists
to predict the economy better to avoid Global Economic Crisis (GEC). Many aspects of human being
have changed so much today that are affecting the economy namely emotions, social relationship, love
and etc. Therefore, I believe economics today is not pure science or always rational; other factors are
to be considered as well.
Is economics a science?
The GEC proves that economics is not only based on mathematical calculations, but science. Since economics is affected by choices people make, it involves the study of psychology. Without the study of psychology, economists will most likely end up with a single prediction that appears to be the most rational and logical.
Although I believe economics is based on science, they share many differences and that will never change. Science, unlike economics deals with a bunch of theories, facts, and laws all proved by experiments. On the other hand, economics is a “study of how scarce resources are or should be used,” and therefore deals with the choices people make and their behavior. This is why I believe economics is also based on psychology, a science.
Economics is not dead, and will never die. It is simply impossible. That said economics does need to reinvent itself in order to move forward. Following the opinion of Brooks economics must understand the complexity and the human relationships which economics are so dependent on. In this way I think it is important that psychology becomes a part of economics. By adapting human thought and instinct into the art of economics, disasters like the economic crisis can be predicted with more accuracy.
The economists should learn from different perspectives and fields as Brooks had written. Economics is so complex that one single view can not help to represent or model how things will work.
I somehow agree to his perspective where he defines economics as science, in terms that they are both very theoretical and hypothetical. They yet require a varied wide range of knowledge to predict and calculate the possible outcomes. However, unlike science, economics has no definite answer and could result far from expected. The GEC is a great example of this. Economics has no exact solution, as results may not come out the same each time, but hopefully the problems the world encountering will be experiences for the future.
Brook’s argues in his article that an economy cannot be run by only an economist but rather a historian, novelist and a psychologist. Albeit Brook’s blames economists for the $50 trillion global wealth suffering, people must understand that mathematical figures do not provide the answers to life. As in science, a hypothesis, experiment and theory are carried out, economics should adapt its concepts to make it more reliable. The subject of economics should not sell itself into a science as it is a variable subject. To regain Economic’s legitimacy, a congregation of sociology, psychology and history should be studied to improve economic risks and future market predictions.
Brookes’ article evokes many questions as to what we hope to get out of the study of economics. Some may say that economics is strictly the study of incentive and human interaction with the market. On the other hand, economics should also give us a sense of what the best way to use our resources is. In that sense, economics should not be greatly focused on psychology, because human behavior may not always be how we “should use” our resources.
There should be a distinction between the side of economics that is greatly influenced by people’s behavior and the side of economics that shows people what the “ideals” of our markets are. Perhaps as people’s behavior change, the ideals of our markets should be revised as well.
Having said that, the ideals of our market should not be so far-fetched that people of this era cannot relate to them. Therefore, while having the distinction between the two sides of economics, there should be a fair balance, so that the two sides can interchange its theories.
While I mention these things about economics, I feel that I have not studied the subject in-depth enough to draw these conclusions. As I study more, perhaps I will be drawn to the ideas of Brooks, where economics will become an “art”.
I thinks that economics should learn from the historian, the psychologist and the novelist as Brooks said in the article to survive since looking economics from multiple perspectives would be more interactive with human life.
Economics is a complex subject, which should only be predicted and planned to an extent. The economic crisis is obviously something no one expected but it happened. Because it is so complex there is not much we as humans can do to predict such outcomes like the economic crisis. Economics is not crystal clear and set up with various rules and equations. Instead of trying to understand and set up rules, we should simply be flexible and expect the unexpected and adapt to whatever situations might come. I read a book called the “Smart Swarm” and it talked about various colonies like ant colonies and although ants themselves are unintelligent, as a colony, they are quite prolific. The book discusses how humans can learn from the ways in which these colonies go about doing things. If humans are able to emulate some of the ways ant colonies work, the economy will surely improve.
The economy just has to be more flexible to various plights like the economic crisis.
I agree to his theory of economics being based on science since both require knowledge to compose a outline of possible outcomes that can affect the country its self. However science and economics can also differ since economics produce count-less results.
I think Economics is highly related to the social science, psychology, and what people want since economics is about us, people. Although numbers tell us a direct and rational data and information, it’s more important to follow what people, who are directly related to Economics, think and require in order to improve it. However, the more delicate study of human minds would be needed in order to understand the complexity of it.