Fun fact: Economics in and of itself is BY FAR the most difficult scientific field...

What? All you need to know is how to add and substract, if it's any more complicated than that you're being kiked

It's going to be cold as balls in the South pole.

>some of them do
[citation needed]

>>what is econometrics
Who are you quoting?

COMPLEX
ADAPTIVE
SYSTEMS

this is what it is, but it doesnt help much except to identify what it is. the theorems of complex adaptive systems show its a fuck field

Economics tries to study a Hellishly complex interactive system, riddle with emergent behaviors.

It's an effort doomed from the start.

>If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they'd all still point in different directions.

Will be hot and dry in Dubai.

IMHO it was intentionally made into a tesseract house of mirrors so that normies don't even care to even bother thinking of what is happening to them.

accurate economic modeling is hard. economic theory is not accurate, and the "nobel prize" is a fradulent, highly political affair that exists to legitimize state policy.
obscurantism in finance is a natural result of competition. as soon as an approach is widely understood, it is no longer applicable.

The normies who bitch about economics are the same type of people who throw their hands up in the air when their house gets destroyed by a rogue tornado coming in their path, yet are furious when the economy turns south in the next 3 years.
Or going to the doctors office and asking the likelihood of dying in the next 5 years due to a heart attack, given their past history. The doctor telling them they have a 5% chance of dying. Then a family member bitches about the doctor, calling them a hack, when their son died to a heart attack year 4.
Or the type of person who hears on the news from an economist which says, "I believe there is a 60% chance the housing market will collapse within the next 3 years." Then hearing another economist say, "I believe there is a 70% chance the housing market will collapse within the next 3 years." Then when the housing market collapses within the next 3 years, the normie thinks, "Well the second economist must have been 'more right' than the first."

Fun fact: Economics in and of itself is NOT a science.

economic theory IS accurate. You ask an economist what the price of a product will be in a city within the next 2 weeks, that economist will say, "No problem, just give me a set of prices and I'll have that info for you." That info will be as accurate as the temperature will be within the next two weeks.

Now you give him the job of asking what the price trend of a good will be in a nation over the next 5 years, and, like climatology, the margin for error is going to be much larger.

>Economics
not science or math

he's essentially saying the econometric process is to economics as the periodic table is to biology. in other words, it DOES use the scientific method.

Nothing in this thread apart from this post is worth reading.

Difficult to predict doesn't necessarily mean intellectually challenging.
If you had unlimited resources and time you could make a very unintelligent but effective solution for predicting future events of any kind by brute force mapping every particle in the universe. It's more an issue of scope than it is an unsolved mystery waiting for some genius to figure out with a couple lines of mathematics.

That is incorrect, you seem to be one of those guys who thinks that the problem with economics lies with not having enough computational power to process a highly complex system but that is just not true, the problem isn't and never was lack of processing power, it's getting the very fundamentals to agree with real world observation. This is because trying to "solve" economics is like trying to figure out how many balls of each kind there are in a box with balls of two possible colors, only that someone keeps changing the proportion of balls in the box.

That's high tier bullshit right there. You're completely blind to all the assumptions of normality that go into forecasting, it's far less accurate than weather forecasting.

>trying to figure out how many balls of each kind there are in a box with balls of two possible colors, only that someone keeps changing the proportion of balls in the box
How is that not just a complex system?
You do know there's no constraint that complex systems never change, right? The weather changes way more often than anyone could change a proportion of colored objects in some guessing game box.

True, but the weather doesn't change just because someone forecasted it.

Do large scale economics change significantly on the basis of economic predictions published?

Yes, all the damn time. Mind you I'm speaking more specifically about the stock market here, but yes herd behavior is a well documented fact.

>Fun fact: Economics in and of itself is BY FAR the most difficult scientific field, which is why it's full of hacks and people who gave up on using the scientific method

As a social science? Undoubtfully, and it is the most rigorous one we have.

As a science generally? Vast majority of natural science subject will have no trouble outshadowing it by difficulty in undergraduate studies alone.

You make it sound like linear regression models are somehow something which is bad?

>Mr weatherman, sir, how do hurricanes form?
>Well, sophomore in college, hurricanes form because of water vapor rising from the ocean's surface condensed to form clouds, releasing heat and causing an area of low pressure, sucking in air and creating winds that caused still further evaporation feeds into an exponentially growing powerful cycle.
>That CANT be true that's bullshit! Screamed the sophomore, evaporation doesn't exist! After all, evaporation is nothing more than an indescribable description of a complex system of water and air molecules.

And no, econ models are no more or less accurate than weather forecasting.

As someone who's been in both I definitely had an easier time in econ but I think that's just because I had a more natural ease for this all along, I had plenty of colleagues in physics who are great in physics but would, in my opinion, be completely unsuited for business and economics.

At the undergraduate level that is probably true though, if nothing else simply because undergrad econ is incredibly simplistic.

I specifically said large scale though.

yes. if someone has some credible news on what might happen in the future, that changes things for everyone. this is the basis for expectation theory in economics.
People make expectations on, well... what to expect in the future, based on what other people are doing. So they plan for it.
In other words, its a system of many different actors interacting with each other. It's a complex two-way street.

The stock market is pretty large user, exactly what scale are you speaking of?

Are you talking about the stock market like that other guy or do you actually mean predictions published will be a significant explanatory factor for the next fifty years of economic history?

What's funny is that if relevant news were all that changed expectations then things would actually be rather simple, the real fun begins when it becomes hard to distinguish between noise and information.

I'm saying I'm sure a prediction could impact behavior in how people invest afterwards, but I don't necessarily believe it's going to be a significant factor in how economics play out in the long term.

i'm talking ANY credible information. Whether it deals with the stock market, or how the government might change up the tax code in the future. This is why a stable economy is so fundamentally healthy (it's easier to prepare for the future).

Any major disagreements economists might have revolve, fundamentally, on "how important is this thing, really?" Not on the methodology.
In other words, in the case of government policy changes, how long """"really"""" would it take for people to catch on to what a government is doing? Not whether or not they'll actually catch on.

This is exactly my point. Noise gets into the system, and creates friction in the model. It's hard to accurately model the impact of these frictions to the point where EVERY economist agrees with each other.

But in all honesty, the interesting bits (the important stuff) are knowing that it's a 2-way street. For example: Govmnt affects the public, but also the public affects govmnt. This is where game theory and establishing healthy market incentives comes into play. It's an interwoven back-and-fourth environment.

>Economics
>Science

That wholly depends on how long that herd behavior lasts, sure if your time span is long enough those things never end up mattering much but honestly when you zoom out that much everything becomes so general as to become platitudes.

Too many variables.

Economists, even the most prestigious, are notorious for their inability to forecast even the most major changes in the economy - never mind anything intricate.

>econ models are no more or less accurate than weather forecasting.
there's a vanishingly small possibility that meteorology and economics have precisely equal predictive power. you're just pulling this assertion out of your ass. are you an econ major?

Try figuring out Macroeconomics.I am 100% sure that nobody fucking understands how it works, even more so the people who claim they do.

Eh. Econometrics is statistics based isn't it? I would definitely call it somewhat scientific but it's definitely not "hard science"

>based on probability
>hurr durr not always correct forecast must be because of incompetence durr hurr

>not knowing how meme arrows work
Lurk moar newfriend