Steve_American wrote:It doesn't matter that some economic theories 'aspire' to be objective natural sciences.
Sure it does. Consider planetary astronomy: until Kepler, there was no useful theory to explain the movements of the planets; but there was a difference between the efforts of those who were trying to find an empirically valid description of planetary motion and those who assumed the planets were moved by the will of the gods.
Until some Econ. theory succeeds in that objective, it follows that no econ. theory *IS* an objective natural science.
No. Before the theory of continental drift, geology could not explain a lot of its findings. That doesn't mean geology was not an empirical science until the theory of continental drift gave it a valid theoretical basis.
To be a true science it must make predictions, do experiments, and see if the predictions are accurate.
Economics does that. The predictions just aren't reliably accurate unless they are no more complex than, "The recent trend will continue."
. . . IF no Econ. theory can do this, it follows the Econ. can at best be like geology and paleontology.
Or medicine, climatology, psychology, or astrophysics. Those are all empirical sciences.
These just look at reality, hopefully new observation of places with exposed geology or new bones found, etc. For, Econ. this would be studying the numbers that describe the economic reality in various nations over times as different policies are implemented by those nation's Govs.
Yes, and economists have to find valid ways of describing such policies in ways that enable reliably accurate prediction of their effects. So far, they can't do that. But that doesn't mean they never will.
. . . I most strongly point the lurkers to the work of Prof. Steve Keen.
I like Keen, and also Michael Hudson, Mason Gaffney, Mariana Mazzucato, Ha-Joon Chang, and a few others.
He has groked that "chaos theory" [which was discovered in the 70s] has the tools that will now allow computer simulations of the supposed economic reality. Chaos theory is a sub-theory of math, that "solves" the non-linear iterated equations that are so common in reality. It is the theory that put forward the famous "butterfly effect". Some examples are weather prediction and population dynamics. Clearly, the economy is a series of iterated transactions of buying, selling, paying wages, paying taxes, investing, and saving, etc.
. . . Prof. Keen lets you download for free his program to see how his supposed economy works. The program shows the chaos that gave the theory its name. That is the economy can move around its strange attractor for years and then for no apparent reason (no outside perturbation) suddenly move to a different strange attractor.
Right. MMNE posits equilibrium "solutions" to systems of simultaneous equations, but economic phenomena are clearly in the domain of differential equations and chaos, which very few economists have the mathematical chops to even think about.
. . . Currently, only MMT has made many predictions that have been proven accurate. A few other isolated economists have made some correct predictions but they are isolated and so are not yet schools of economics with theories.
Not so. Geoists predicted the contrast between China's boom and Russia's bust based on how they handled land, which MMNE got hilariously wrong. Geoists like Fred Foldvary also predicted the GFC.
. . . Please, lurkers show me places where the consensus of either Neo-liberal or Neo-Keynesian economists have made any correct predictions. I have yet to be told of any.
It is true that MMNE is incapable of making reliably accurate predictions more complex than, "The recent trend will continue." But MMNE =/= economics.
ToP said that I need to learn the history of economics, or I'll repeat mistakes.
OK, what old economic theory do you (ToP) claim is a natural science?
Classical economics, while it was wrong about the Labor Theory of Value and lacked an account of marginal effects, was nevertheless more accurate than neoclassical economics in its description of the economic roles of workers, factory owners and landowners.
. . . You do realize that it was rejected by almost all economists. It could not have been that good at proving its theory to be objectively true, if it was abandoned in favor of a different theory. What accurate predictions did it make? Why was it abandoned?
Classical economics was abandoned because it was married to the Labor Theory of Value, which Jevons refuted in 1869, it lacked a theory of externalities, and its account of pricing was clearly inferior to marginal analysis.