Blog 12

Is Economics a Science, Semi-Science, or Pseudo-Science?

Merriam-Webster defines economics as the following:

Social science that analyzes and describes the consequences of choices made concerning scarce productive resources. Economics is the study of how individuals and societies choose to employ those resources: what goods and services will be produced, how they will be produced, and how they will be distributed among the members of society.

The Noble Prize Committee gives an award to an individual for greatness and achievement in the field they term,  "Economic Sciences", annually since 1968. However some question the categorization of Economics as a science.

Merriam-Webster gives multiple definitions for science including, among others:

Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

A subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

A department of systematized knowledge as an object of study.

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Many have denounced the term "science", while other jump to its defense(links to examples provided). The debate seems to mainly stem from the first and fourth dictionary definitions provided above. Both allude to use of the scientific method, hypothesizing and controlled experimentation, to determine facts. I tend to agree, Economics is not a science in this sense. I cannot come up with an example were economists can use controlled experimentation to determine the "general laws/facts", if they even exist, of Economics (I am very interested if anybody can think of examples, perhaps in the study of behavioral economics?). However, I think undeniably economics fits the 2nd and 3rd formal definitions provided. Certainly economics is "formally studied in college" and certainly is "systematized knowledge as an object of study".  However I am slightly taken aback by these definitions. One could argue that Art, History, English, Religion, almost anything, is a science under these assertions. All are studied in college and all can be “departments of systematized knowledge”, however I would never claim them to be “science”. I think the term science ought to be left for that which can be proved as fact through experimentation. For this reason, I think if you’re going to call Economics a science, call it a “social science”. I don't believe one would be right in calling Economics an outright science like Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc. 

What say you?

Blog 11

The one Bieber video I enjoy, I highly recommend it, you will laugh. http://youtu.be/6XSEi1jTR58 (Bieber attempts to explain his Ann Frank comments also).

I have little to no interest in Justin Bieber. I can honestly say I don't enjoy his music and don't understand the pubic obsession with him. The Ann Frank comments were a little off putting to me, however I can sort of understand his rationalization, she probably would of been a fan. The odd part is that after spending a few hours in an Ann Frank museum, the first thoughts to come his mind were , " Hey, I think she would have been a fan of mine". That exposes a wee-bit of egotism I think.

When thinking about his situation, I cannot help but think that I am watching just another child mega-celebrity at the beginning of the "plunge" stage of their career. When looking at past trends with child stars, there is almost inevitably a fall from grace, a "train wreck" phase. The Michael Jackson, Drew Berrymore, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Macaulay Culkin types all had their peaks, and all had their tremendous plunges into irrelevance and disgrace. I think Bieber is on his way down from the top of the mountain. If I am going by these past trends, my bet is that somewhere in the next 2-6 years Bieber will be out of the public eye and irrelevant (maybe rightfully so).

Of course I don't garner any personal hatred for Bieber and I hope he lives a happy and fulfilling life, but the "celebrity empirical data" is against him. Unfortunately child stars like him have a tendency to have issues in their later years. It is an unfortunate phenomenon.  I think in a lot of these star's cases, they have been used by adults in their lives as investment tools. These businessmen/managers/parents use them for money and notoriety, but deprive the kids of anything close to a normal childhood. It seems to be a rather nasty form of child abuse/neglect.  Only time will tell if Bieber can beat the odds and hold up to the pressures and scrutinies of fame.

"Fame doesn't fulfill you. It warms you a bit, but that warmth is temporary."

Marilyn Monroe

Blog 10

The Johnson& Johnson lawsuit/scandal startled me. With giant, established corporations like this, I find myself having a great deal of trust and faith in them. They seem so "mainstream" that I would never expect such misconduct. The fact that a company like this would willingly put public health in jeopardy, makes me question if they have any regard for the effects of their drugs. I believe there are companies that genuinely care about the public/customers, but events like this waiver confidence. I don't remember reading anything in the article about any prison sentences being brought on those high ranking executives that made the reckless decisions. I certainly hope these crimes don't go without those executives having to pay some prison time. I don't think crimes as seriously as this, putting as many people's livelihoods at risk, can simply be punished with fines. What makes the crimes even more appalling to me, is the nature of the drugs being recklessly prescribed. This was not a case of over prescription of harmless Amoxicillin, we're talking about antipsychotic drugs with very dangerous side effects.  Despite antipsychotic drugs already being controversial/ questionable, J&J was working hard to get them prescribed to as many people as possible. This is a great example of the importance of, at least some, government regulation. In this scenario the government was able to protect/save a lot of people and bring about justice for these irresponsible/careless crimes.

Blog 9

A little video to start of the blog http://youtu.be/x4c_wI6kQyE?t=4s. He seems healthy to me, I think 18 year olds can handle it.

I am always interested in government bans or restrictions of certain substances. Whether alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. I think the issue of substance regulation by government is a little more tricky than people realize. Both sides of the debate have difficult implications to deal with. Heavy regulation of substances to the point of prohibition is noble from the stand point that government is looking out for the interest of the people. However prohibition costs a lot of money and in some sense infringes on individual liberty. Furthermore, prohibitions /restrictions of substances have debatable success, some say they're even counterproductive. On the other hand, is removing all restrictions on every substance responsible? Can the government really just allow people to do what they want to their bodies? The idea of a "free for all" substance policy, suggested by politicians like Ron Paul, tends to make people uneasy. After all, toddlers will start smoking two packs a day! The difficulty seems to lie in walking the line between infringing on individual liberty and government responsibility.

The  New York tobacco legislation seems partially contradictory to me. The law aims to protect citizens from addiction and dangerous health implications. However does raising the legal age 3 years really help? Doesn't this imply that something significant changes in an individual between the age of 18 and 21 that makes the government less concerned about them? From the readings, I got the impression the law doesn't focus on prohibiting use or possession, simply purchase. That seems odd to me. Many of the young cigarette users seem to imply underage individuals already use alternative means to acquire their cigarettes. The legislation doesn't seem to address that issue.

I find it fascinating that the U.S. seems to place such an emphasis on substance regulation, yet we seem to have the most substance abuse and health issues. Countries like Germany, who have a legal drinking age of 16, seem to have far less abuse problems with teens. This makes me wonder about the effectiveness of legalizing ages and the nature of American citizens. Perhaps there is simply something about our society that makes teenagers want to use substances they're not supposed to.

Blog 8

I have always been surprised that pirates are still a very real problem in maritime transportation. Piracy seems like a very dated, old-timey problem. I believe the first ever insurance company arose from the need for protection financially from piracy and other maritime risks. Yet hundreds of years later, piracy remains a very real concern. I couldn't wrap my mind around why these pirates seem to thrive. However, after listening to the podcast, I can see why piracy is a very functional, professional business venture that still survives today.

After watching Captain Phillips, the film about the famous, mainstream Somali pirate incident,  I began to realize that quite a bit of consideration goes into the whole "pirate procedure". The movie did not delve into the business side as much as the podcast, but did elude to some sort of financier who backs the operation. The movie also did not depict the pirates as organized like the podcast describes them. The pirates were portrayed as a handful of teenagers waving around automatic assault rifles with not much direction.

The podcast explained a  much more elaborate form of professional piracy than I had ever realized. I had always assumed that pirates were just gangbangers that went around the ocean looking for a boat to terrorize. I never realized that in fact, wealthy stakeholders facilitate piracy by using the operation as a mode of investment. The podcast described piracy as some sort of alternative to securities or real estate. These investors carefully consider which ships to rob, who's on the ship, what the ship carries, and which country the ship belongs to in order to achieve maximum profit. Of course, there's the overhead costs of speed boats, RPG's, assault rifles, crew, negotiators, and the catering company, but minimal fees compared to the millions that can be made.

The main reason piracy thrives today is due to a sort of "piracy paradox" that faces the cargo owners. The companies have to pay the ransoms to avoid deaths and media trouble, because a lot of times their government is not capable of saving the boat. This allows the pirates to stay in business, because they keep receiving the ransoms. The ship owner on the podcast described this as a "vicious circle".

Blog 7

The government shutdown/ debt ceiling/ economic crisis topic is very confusing. There seems to be a fairly apparent issue, the government is spending more money than they have. Now, when the average person spends more money than they have, they usually decide to balance their budget. They recognize you cannot spend more than you bring in. Failure to appropriately balance a budget results in a ever increasing debt. The government pretends to balance their budget, or at least minimize the rate of their debt acquisition, by setting a meaningless debt ceiling. The supposed incentive to get this meaningless debt ceiling set, is a government shutdown, which of course is fake. I fail to see the logic behind this shutdown, which didn't seem to be much of a shutdown. I think the idea of a "shutdown", at least in its current use, should be abolished. The shutdown no longer serves any financial purpose, in fact, it costs a lot of money and congressional time. To me, the shutdown seems like we are shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason.

I think some sort of "balanced budget" constitutional action should be taken. Right now it seems the U.S. government looks to be bankrupt. The government needs to prioritize how they should allocate their income, and follow the plan with a superficial ceiling. If such prioritizing cannot be agreed upon, perhaps equal cuts across the board on spending will have to be the method. One way or the other, the U.S. needs to stop spending more than they can, using a national default as a political weapon, and get rid of the meaningless debt ceiling. We are rapidly closing in on a default, some say we essentially already have defaulted, so rapid change in policy needs to take place to give ourselves  a chance. We will find ourselves in the "government shutdown" fiasco at the next date that has been set. Other countries can see we have no control over our spending, and that our dollar is becoming increasingly useless.

Blog 6

Watching the events of the “biker” incident unfold was pretty shocking. It seemed much more like something out of a movie than reality. I was appalled by the actions of both parties involved. However, the actions of the “biker gang”/ “gang of bikers”, whatever you feel comfortable labeling them, sparked the driver’s overreaction. Therefore, if your goal is to pin “blame” or to determine which one of the parties acted in the wrong, you have to elect the bikers. Of course I don’t think the driver’s decision to run over a biker was ideal, but the bikers should accept that acting in manner they were, in the middle of a busy highway can have some potentially unsavory consequences. Riding your motor bikes recklessly and illegally in the middle of New York City with fifty of your buddies can be hazardous to one’s health. It is safe to say the bikers recognized (or should have) this fact before they set out on their tear. You cannot be so naïve to think that behaving in such a manner will not inevitably enrage some drivers. You also cannot be so naïve to think that, of these drivers you will inevitably enrage, all of them will be so courteous as to politely ask you to get out of their way. Of course some people will completely overreact and behave recklessly. It’s called road rage and it happens all the time. That is the risk you take when you behave like this “gang of bikers” did.

To the point of the SUV driver’s behavior, my first reaction was that he completely overreacted to the situation. I tried applying Smith’s “empathy/sympathy test”, putting myself in his “shoes” and then determining how I would have acted. My first answer was that of course I would immediately call the authorities and try to plea with the “gang of bikers” to not stomp me. Then I wasn’t so sure, after all I have never been in any situation close to that of this man. I suppose this is the problem with empathizing in this manner. I cannot truly determine how I would act in this man’s “shoes”, therefore I cannot completely empathize, only speculate. As I stated before, this event seemed more like a scene from a movie, not reality, how could I realistically and confidently state how I would behave in the situation? I would like to think I would respond in a civil manner and I could never imagine myself driving over someone with my vehicle. On the other hand, I don’t know how afraid the man was for himself or his family, I also don’t know if I would have been equally afraid or less afraid. For these reasons, I don’t think I can say with total and unwavering confidence how I would have acted. I suppose some will feign a greater sense of self-assurance than this, but I cannot be so certain.