What's going on in Paris?

Originally Posted by CBL4:
Unfortunately, this type of thing happens when youths have no job prospects. France has a youth unemployment rate of 22%. Presumably it is much higher for immigrants and their children. Since they also face discrimination, they are quite likely to be angry.

France needs to change its law and culture to one that encourages new jobs. Presently they protects unions and the currently employed at the expense of youths and unemployed.

Originally Posted by FLO:
If only it was that simple ...

Of course it isn't that simple, but there is something to what CBL4 has said. Unfortunately, democratic governments often pander to the economic theories of the less informed.

The unintended consequences of legislation aimed at promoting economic justice can be severe. France has implemented poliicies that guarantee high unemployment rates. And high unemployment rates encourage employers to discriminate. And in this case employers discriminate against a section of the population they judge to be more risky, i.e. muslims and particularly recent immigrant muslims.

Milton Friedman, in this book, Capitalism and Freedom, talked about something exactly like this when strong union protection was instituted in the US. Employers which had routinely hired blacks then found it advantageous not to do so. Per force, unions raised wages above market rates which created a surplus of workers. Employers which had routinely hired blacks now found it advantageous not to do so. Unions needed to reduce the pool of workers because there were now more workers than jobs and unions decided that the blacks were in the group to lose their jobs.

Of course, Flo was right that it isn't this simple. The US has had some very severe riots and the overall US unemployment rates are much lower than France's. On the other hand some of the most severe riots have occurred in Detroit, a town that unions have almost destroyed.
 
Oh boy, Milton Friedman... Now there's a reliable source on politics and economics! :rolleyes:
 
Didn't he win a Nobel Prize in economics?

I have a very low opinion of both the Nobel prizes in Economics and Peace. The economics prize didn't exist before 1969.
They're essentially political prizes that have very little to do with real science.
 
I have a very low opinion of both the Nobel prizes in Economics and Peace. The economics prize didn't exist before 1969.
They're essentially political prizes that have very little to do with real science.

I'd certainly agree with you on the Peace prize, but economics?
 
I've posted this before, but here it is anyway...

I remember reading about a little table created by Peter Medawar, were he compared economic predictions to weather predictions (by the way, the fact that weather predictions and economic predictions are compared is only a coincidence, it's only an example):

Weather: all variables are scalar i.e. measurable variables.
Economics: not all variables are scalar (how do you quantify consumer confidence?)

Weather: functional relations (i.e. the relations between temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc.) often exactly known
Economics: they are usually conjectural.

Weather: Uninfluenced by politics or fashion
Economics: influenced by both

Weather: wholly non-reflexive i.e. if you predict what the weather will be tomorrow, your prediction won't affect it.
Economics: highly reflexive i.e. your economic "prediction" can affect the way the economy behaves, changing the prediction or creating "self-fulfilling prophecies".

I think the science of economics makes no sense when it's separated from politics or history. It should become a subset of those disciplines, not a whole science on its own.
 
Last edited:
I've posted this before, but here it is anyway...

I remember reading about a little table created by Peter Medawar, were he compared economic predictions to weather predictions (by the way, the fact that weather predictions and economic predictions are compared is only a coincidence, it's only an example):

Weather: all variables are scalar i.e. measurable variables.
Economics: not all variables are scalar (how do you quantify consumer confidence?)

Weather: functional relations (i.e. the relations between temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc.) often exactly known
Economics: they are usually conjectural.

Weather: Uninfluenced by politics or fashion
Economics: influenced by both

Weather: wholly non-reflexive i.e. if you predict what the weather will be tomorrow, your prediction won't affect it.
Economics: highly reflexive i.e. your economic "prediction" can affect the way the economy behaves, changing the prediction or creating "self-fulfilling prophecies".

I think the science of economics makes no sense when it's separated from politics or history. It should become a subset of those disciplines, not a whole science on its own.
You're confusing an economist predicting what the stock market will do on any given week w/ economic policy.
 
You're confusing an economist predicting what the stock market will do on any given week w/ economic policy.

Well, quite a lot of economic policy is based on economic prediction, but that's quite besides the point here. Many economists have suffered from "physics envy", in the sense that they have tried to turn economics into an exact science. And one of the main features of the so-called exact sciences is their predictive power. But outside of a few very specific situations, economics has no serious predictive power. I believe that economics has a science has value only has a descriptive science. That's why I think economics should be a historical science, a subset of history or sociology.
 
Well, quite a lot of economic policy is based on economic prediction, but that's quite besides the point here. Many economists have suffered from "physics envy", in the sense that they have tried to turn economics into an exact science. And one of the main features of the so-called exact sciences is their predictive power. But outside of a few very specific situations, economics has no serious predictive power. That's why I think economics should be a descriptive historical science, a subset of history or sociology.
BS. There are very specific, predictable effects of economic policy in the long term. Such as raising the federal funds rate to control inflation. Greenspan didn't spend all those years at the Fed reading chicken entrails.
 
Ah, but did that happen because it was really "predicted", or did that happen because that's what people thought it should happen?

Economics: highly reflexive i.e. your economic "prediction" can affect the way the economy behaves, changing the prediction or creating "self-fulfilling prophecies".
 
Ah, but did that happen because it was really "predicted", or did that happen because that's what people thought it should happen?

Economics: highly reflexive i.e. your economic "prediction" can affect the way the economy behaves, changing the prediction or creating "self-fulfilling prophecies".
I would say economics is a science insofar as it is a search for objective truth.* Its scientists may not have as much success in discovering truth as, say, biologists, but the purpose is the same, as are many of the methods.

As you point out, economists have a great many difficulties that other "hard" scientists don't have - establishing controls, dealing with the infinite complexity of human behavior, and so on. Maybe that's why it's often called "the dismal science." But I'd say it is a science, nonetheless.

* Which is another reason ID isn't a science - its proponents claim to already know the truth.
 
Ah, but did that happen because it was really "predicted", or did that happen because that's what people thought it should happen?

Economics: highly reflexive i.e. your economic "prediction" can affect the way the economy behaves, changing the prediction or creating "self-fulfilling prophecies".
Are you claiming that inflationary pressures goe down when the money supply is tightened only because people have been told it will go down? If so, then all France has to do is tell people that there will be full employment in 6 months and it will be so. And they won't have to change one thing about their economic structure!

You've never taken a single economics course in your life, have you? Maybe you should, you might be shocked to discover how much it has been studied and how much has been learned, often painfully as Nixon/Ford/Carter could tell you. Well, if Nixon were still alive that is.
 
I would say economics is a science insofar as it is a search for objective truth.* Its scientists may not have as much success in discovering truth as, say, biologists, but the purpose is the same, as are many of the methods.

As you point out, economists have a great many difficulties that other "hard" scientists don't have - establishing controls, dealing with the infinite complexity of human behavior, and so on. Maybe that's why it's often called "the dismal science." But I'd say it is a science, nonetheless.

* Which is another reason ID isn't a science - its proponents claim to already know the truth.
Of course! It's very difficult to have controls in economics, because anything can and will happen ranging from wars to natural disasters. Which is why economists are so fond of the phrase ceteris paribus. Once that catch-all is invoked, things do behave as expected in the long term. Of course, people demand short-term results and no pain in the process, thus the constant desire to discredit economic thought and try something disastrous.
 
I would say economics is a science insofar as it is a search for objective truth.* Its scientists may not have as much success in discovering truth as, say, biologists, but the purpose is the same, as are many of the methods.

As you point out, economists have a great many difficulties that other "hard" scientists don't have - establishing controls, dealing with the infinite complexity of human behavior, and so on. Maybe that's why it's often called "the dismal science." But I'd say it is a science, nonetheless.

* Which is another reason ID isn't a science - its proponents claim to already know the truth.

Oh, I agree that economics is a science. What I don't agree with is with what kind of science it is. It is not a predictive science. It should be simply considered a descriptive science.
 

Back
Top Bottom