I wonder if economics has less basic core material than is necessary for fields such as mathematics, physics, or chemistry, say.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
People want to think of economics as a natural science, like physics, with the comforting reliability of simple-to-understand theories like F=MA. Unfortunately, it isn't. Economics is a social science, and the so-called theories are really social and moral constructs.
Economics is a strange science. Our subject deals with some of the most important as well as mundane issues that impinge on the human condition.
I went into the sciences very early on, but to me, economics pervades so much more of our lives and our existence.
Economics is not an exact science. It's a combination of an art and elements of science. And that's almost the first and last lesson to be learned about economics: that in my judgment, we are not converging toward exactitude, but we're improving our data bases and our ways of reasoning about them.
Unfortunately, a lot of economists wanted to make their subject a science. So the more what you do resembles physics or chemistry, the more credible you become.
I wasn't actually very naturally good at economics. My brain doesn't work very well, in terms of mathematics.
I've felt for some time that economics needs to be taught differently by economists who actually have had experience making a payroll or investing on Wall Street. When economics is taught by pure academics, watch out.
I think that it's more important for an economist to be wise and sophisticated in scientific method than it is for a physicist because with controlled laboratory experiments possible, they practically guide you; you couldn't go astray. Whereas in economics, by dogma and misunderstanding, you can go very sadly astray.
Economics is a subject that does not greatly respect one's wishes.
Economics has never been a science - and it is even less now than a few years ago.