william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,410
- 280
That I agree with. But in Economics glossing over uncertainty in analysis is the rule more often than exception. That needs to stop.Economics is not a real science. You don't seem to know this basic fact. Try using it with patent law protections and oligarchies, and see what happens to all those nice graphs and formulas, and the fact that there are very few competitors in any business these days, especially so for commodities and raw materials.
I'd probably say the same thing if I knew nothing about economics like yourself.
Well economics has no unified general theory: labor, trade, demographics, behavioral, Government et al cannot be worked up into a general theory because it costs too much to get the data needed and massaged. Even 99.9% certainty on the 200+ inputs for a bare bones GDP like India uses means a huge margin of error. Compared to global warming, macro-evolution and other hard "sciences" economics looks like number theory but that ain't that high a bar.
That misses the point.
Simply because econometrics is unable to estimate human behavior with the precision of physics does not invalidate our general understanding of economics. It's like saying we should ignore everything in the social sciences, or the hard sciences for that matter, if it can't be measured exactly.
Pitardo's comment about economics being invalid because it doesn't deal with monopolies and oligopolies is not only irrelevant to the cost dynamics of capital/labor substitution, which is the topic of the OP, it is factually wrong.