L1,

I took that definition straight out of the dictionary to which economics complies. It is not just my opinion, it is a pure definition, even though it sometimes gets twisted to suit political agendas.

To quote Robert Schiller "As economics develops, it will broaden its repertory of methods and sources of evidence, the science will become stronger, and the charlatans will be exposed."

shadow minister
The Schiller article was interesting, but I am guessing you did not read the comments below it
.
The difference I see is that the accepted sciences, such as physics, chemistry etc, dont have so many in the profession disagreeing with one another. From time to time some wiz kid comes along and shakes things up, and basic theory is adjusted amongst most in the profession.

However when it comes to economic theory there is constant debate about what should be adjusted to get the economy performing efficiently.

I appreciate that as the owner of an economics degree you are some what protective of the theory that you were taught. However many of the rest of us just think it is all just a lot of nonsense that has lead us to a world that is in economic chaos.

If the economists of the world have such a great understanding of how the economy works, how come so many never saw the crash in 2008 coming, or were able to stop it happening.

A final point, can you tell me if or when another crash is coming so that I can stop stuffing my assets under the mattress, as I am scared they will disappear if i put them in a bank as happened in Cyprus not to long ago.

Chris

L1

A physicist is not able to predict the path of a meteor that he cannot see. Similarly, there were very few people that were fully aware of the extent of the junk bonds that crashed. No science can predict accurately with imprecise or incorrect measurements. Secondly, there is always active debate and disagreement in all the natural sciences, just that you don't see it.

Secondly most of those arguing about economics are politicians with a huge vested interest.

shadow minister
So most economists did not see junk bonds coming is the same as a meteor that is light years away. I would think most would find it a strange admission that economists after a four year degree could not spot, that particulate disaster a long way off.

There are many who are not politicians who look to the professionals, to give them advise about where to safely put their savings.

We can all agree to differ on whether economists work in a science or a profession. However I am sure even you would agree that, it is the economists job to see an economic meteor long before it lays our economic future into a waste land.

Chris

L1,

Really! So how many of the world's best pollsters predicted a Trump victory?

Wake up. If you don't have all the information, predictions are not possible.

"So how many of the world's best pollsters predicted a Trump victory?"

About as many as predicted a Brexit victory over Brussels.

Their failure lies in their basic operating system which includes a low value ascribed to democracy and what it can do when unleashed. Bob Katter had his finger on the button when he noted that free trade is as dead as the dodo now that America is turning its back on it.

Next step is to lift economics from Adam Smith's flawed calculations to a scientific basis with a focus on what wealth is and how it's created. HINT: Acquisition and allocation - i.e. investment - creates none of it. Zilch.