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.

 

Blog 5

         When examining the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, most assume that Obamacare is the main point of concern. Obamacare is the current topic of concern, since a resolution of the policy between the two parties would temporarily alleviate the government shutdown. However the belief that Obamacare is the issue holding the U.S. back from having a  prosperous economy and that when a resolution is passed we can forget about the debt crisis is rather naïve. I think something much more fundamental must change before real, long lasting improvements can occur in economy, politics, and the debt situation.

       More importantly than Obamacare, the obnoxiously partisan mindset in politics, more specifically the Legislative branch needs to drastically change. United States' politics is more polarized and more partisan than ever before. Members of congress worry more about scoring points with their extremely partisan campaign donors rather than helping improve the state of the country. Since reelection is always the main concern of a congressmen, they vote in a manner that will appease their donors (very extremely to the left or right). I recommend looking up members of congress voting histories. You'll find that "Republicans" essentially vote conservatively 100% of the time and "Democrats" 100% for the left. Voting action like this ruins the two party system, and is why nothing can get done at the Legislative branch, and in the political world in general. It is all a big pissing contest. Of course Adams and Washington warned of the very situation we find ourselves in today, a fight between two political factions, constantly trying to get back at one another. The founding fathers are certainly rolling over in their graves. In fact a change in policy or issue stance is frowned upon in the current political culture. Campaign ads are filled with accusations of "not staying true to the party" or "flip flopping on stances", politicians love to brag that they "haven't changed their stances on the issues EVER". Why would close mindedness like this be a point of pride? Why is  changing a stance inherently bad?  I think a major reform in political thinking needs to occur in the U.S., maybe a movement away from the two party system, maybe an emergence of more parties (like Germany), maybe some alternative option. The culture of picking either "Team Conservative" or "Team Democrat" and then fighting for your chosen narrow beliefs to the death is ridiculous. In what other aspect of life is their only two restrictive, with no room for variation stances to choose from? If you watch the NBA, you do not have to choose between being either a Lakers fan or a Celtics fan, with no other possibilities, there are dozens of teams in which you can support. Once you pick your favorite team, you are not forever bound to the team til death. If your team doesn't make it to the Finals, when it is time to decide a champion, you pick whichever team you dislike the least to cheer for (I hope you understand the point I am trying to make with this vague analogy). The point being, government and politics must be more free thinking and breakaway from partisan restraints.

         On the topic of Obamacare, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to meddle with an individual's health. It increases everyone's premiums and decreases quality of care. Healthcare should be privatized, which would make care more affordable and quality increase. I don't think a completely privatized healthcare system would leave the poor and disadvantaged out on the streets to suffer because they cannot afford care, I have more faith in humanity than this. More than likely doctors (who I think it is safe to say possess a general care and interest for people's health) would charitable help these disadvantaged.

       I can see how one could think this post is rather hypocritical, at one moment I bash partisanship, then proceed to express what could be viewed as a very partisan stance. I suppose the difference is I don't consider myself absolutist in my position and would be open to hearing evidence for opposition stances. If evidence or statistics or a valid constitutional interpretation would present itself, I would be more than glad to alter my stance to better it. I have no blinding emotional or indoctrinated association with my beliefs and always open to change. I think leaving emotional attachment to your "Team" is probably the best way to think about things in politics and life, be a free thinker.

Blog 4

Unlike what seems to be the majority of the class, I have no substantial history with these "memes" or "adorable pet videos". When it comes to the writing on this subject I am quite the novice, and for this I am proud. So please excuse how greenhorn-ish this blog may be. One thing is for sure, the general public does seem to hold some interest in the cute animal culture. Whether this interest has traceable origins or simply sprouted from human nature, it captivates millions.

The task of finding something substantial in the material provided was quite the challenge. However, the thought that being  a "dog person" or "cat person"  could influence or predispose someone to a certain economic ideology was interesting. Or perhaps the causal claim goes the other way, does your economic policy stance predispose you to being a cat or dog person. The claim that, "Trots prefer cats, whilst Maoists, dogs, because cats embody class independence, whilst dogs rely on cross-class alliance" may be complete nonsense, nonetheless humorous to consider. It  would be interesting to investigate if there is a correlation between pet preference and ideology. Are Republicans dog people? Democrats cat people? That leaves Moderates as fish people? Or maybe Republicans are more Golden Retriever-ish and Democrats more Beagle-like. If you want to get real edgy, perhaps you claim Republicans are Siamese cat people and Democrats lean more Persian. The possibilities are exciting.

Blog 3

The Aurora shooting, the Newtown massacre, and the naval yard tragedy, among several other recent public attacks, raise serious concerns among U.S. citizens. Such acts of violence baffle essentially everyone, which makes the task of understanding the cause of them very confusing. Because of the difficulty of identifying the reason for such acts, deciding how to prevent them also raises much debate. Commonly, people rush to brash opinions on preventing such acts. For many, a seemingly easy route of prevention is to simply take away guns from citizens. The popular stance seems to be that if the government took away guns from the people, either by directly doing so or by increasing the difficultly of acquiring them, these acts would stop happening. I disagree with such a claim. Increasing gun control would have no impact on the frequency or severity of these acts.

I think that it is rather naïve to believe that if the government tried to increased gun control, difficulty of acquiring guns, and so on, that these acts would stop happening. United States citizens have owned guns since the founding of the country. We all know the 2nd amendment gives us this right. Yet such attacks did not occur with the frequency and severity as they do today.

What seems to have changed in recent years is an increase in mental health issues. I am no psychologist nor expert on mental health, but from a laymen's prospective, this seems evident. Taking for example the naval yard shooting, it seems that Alexis' extreme mental health concerns and the inability of those around him to recognize and act on his issues more directly led the attack,  than his ability to acquire a gun. I would argue he would have found a way to act violently regardless of how strict gun laws were. Whether he would have illegally acquired a gun or simply used one of the many other possible modes of conflicting harm on people. I do not believe there is  a streamline way for the government to take away the ability of a citizen to harm other citizens, much more than what policies are already  in place (background checks for guns, building security, etc.). What needs to improve is the ability of citizens to recognize when an individual has mental health issues, and  what measures need to be taken to address them.

Blog 2

If you don't already know, the conflict in Syria poses quite a dilemma to the United States, and the world. A civil war rages on, fueled by attempts of majority sects to over throw a minority sect who govern the country, lead by president Bashar al-Assad. It also appears that Assad has used chemical weapons on thousands of rebels, including innocent children, a direct violation of global laws, to fend off the attempts to overthrow him.  For years their have been public demands for Assad's resignation from office and the resulting civil war has lead to around 100,000 lost lives and millions of fleeing refugees. The Syrian economy has been crippled and many of their cities are destroyed war zones.

This situation leads to many questions, "What must done?", " Can anything be done?", and "Should anything be done at all?". All valid questions and several valid answers exist for each. Many would argue, including Barack Obama, that the U.S. must militarily strike down Assad's rule to bring about order and peace in the nation, save innocent lives, and to enforce U.N. laws. The strike would destroy chemical weapons, remove the tyrannical, unpopular leader, and allow the rebels to set up a government that is in the interest of the public. Others would say, that a military strike would be ineffective, create more violence, and enrage the Syrian and various other governments, such as Russia. Then there's the isolationist view that the conflict in Syria is not U.S. business, cannot be helped or mended by our actions, therefore the U.S. should leave it alone, the last thing the country needs is another military conflict or enrage a dangerous government. Clearly, the answers to the above questions depend on one's views of morality.

Recent developments have resulted in what appears to be a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The Syrian government has recently agreed to a plan that would require them to destroy their chemical weapons by 2014. While this sounds like a solution, many remain skeptical. The agreement does not address the tyrannical Assad, who many would say is the root of all the issues, he remains in power and seemingly without punishment. Will removing the chemical weapons really solve what the actual problem, will it stop the  refugee crisis, will stop the civil war, will it save the economy. Or must more blunt action be taken. I don't mean to suggest any answers, as I don't think I have one, but I think it is important for people to ask themselves these sorts of questions and to consider the moral dilemmas that result in the various options.

Blog 1

   This blog post will consist of my interpretations and thoughts on “Section V: Concerning our Reasoning…” by Francis Hutcheson. This essay took me quite some time to drudge through, as the 18^th century writing style was often cryptic. However, after some time and several re-readings of paragraphs, I was able to gather what seemed to me to be Hutcheson’s main notion. This notion being that humans’ share a sense of beauty, an appreciation for regularity, uniformity, and consistency, of which can never come to existence by randomness but by a designer. One sentence that somewhat summarizes this notion sits in the third paragraph when Hutcheson proclaims,” that wherever there is any Regularity in the disposition of a System capable of many other , there must have been Design in the Cause; and the Force of this Evidence increases, according to the Multiplicity of Parts imploy’d”(Hutcheson, Concerning).
   Hutcheson’s thesis presents a very interesting but dated argument. He uses the majority of the writing to defend his thesis through legitimate mathematical reasoning, however his conclusion many would debate. To summarize, Hutcheson claims that the regularity or “beauty” we see in the natural world is extremely mathematically improbable, therefore, this regularity could not come to existence by chance, but by design.  Today, most scientific thinkers would of course agree that the natural world’s regularity and beauty was not brought about by chance at all, but through a selective process called evolution. In fairness to Hutcheson, he presented a very logical argument at the time he made it, as the theory of evolution did not come to presence until after Hutcheson’s death.
   I think Hutcheson makes a very respectable claim, given the knowledge of the world he had at the time, as there seemed to be little alternatives. In terms of his work refuting or clashing with Mandeville’s, Fable of the Bees, I think some disagreements occur. To summarize, I think Mandeville gives mankind little credit and faith, whereas Hutcheson would argue that man naturally possesses an innate ability to see beauty and reason. One could then assume that Hutcheson would argue that this natural sense lead humanity to organizing itself into a civil society as it would be the reasonable action to take.

Plagiarism Exercise

The city of Detroit has seen better days. Once the home of economic fortune and prosperity in the U.S., now at an all time low and filed for bankruptcy. Reasons for the severe economic downfall are even more depressing. It turns out, shady investments of pension funds, 1. such as the funds' $30 million loan to a cargo airline that filed for bankruptcy months later, according to court records, take a large part of the blame for the economic crisis in the Motor City. Obviously,  transactions like these make many citizens question the integrity of those in charge of their pension

However, shady investments were not the only contributor. The theft and laundering was not always so subtle. 2.In some cases, outright fraud was at play. FBI investigations led to the conviction this year of former Mayor Kwame Kilpartick on a variety of charges, including some related to the pensions. In addition, $84 million of the funds' losses have been tied to a corruption scheme. (Hicken 1).Without question, many of the pension fund managers took part in flat out money laundering. 3.These managers have been found guilty of accepting cash, casino chips, and even vacations in exchange for steering pension funds to certain companies.

Clearly, the monitoring of movement and care of such large amounts of money needs to ramp up in Detroit if people expect the economy to change anytime soon. Citizens and politicians have to place people of character and integrity, who keep the best interests of the people in charge of these funds. 4.The pension funds should be managed to benefit retirees, not to line the pockets of public officials.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/28/news/economy/detroit-pensions/index.html?iid=Lead