Is economics the new religion/psychology?

simu

This thread is inspired by the success of such books as Freakonomics and The Pope's Children. If you're not familiar with these, go google. In essence, they provide a quirky and entertaining introduction to economics or certain aspects of economics. Now, until recent times, economics would have been seen by most as being rather dull but now, it seems, increasingly, to be seen as a fount of explanations for many of the more puzzling aspects of life and a way to find an identity (i.e. - what socio-economic pattern do you fall into?). These were the types of questions answered by religion or psychology in the past but it seems that the appeal of these two has worn off.

Thoughts?

The_Minister

Moore McDowell is a legend.
Economics is important because it deals with everyone everywhere. It links people of all nations and shows the invisable laws of society working away.

utopian

simu wrote:

Now, until recent times, economics would have been seen by most as being rather dull but now, it seems, increasingly, to be seen as a fount of explanations for many of the more puzzling aspects of life and a way to find an identity (i.e. - what socio-economic pattern do you fall into?). These were the types of questions answered by religion or psychology in the past but it seems that the appeal of these two has worn off.

Thoughts?

Can you provide an example of a specific question to which both religion and economics provide an answer?

Laplandman

I thought religion was the new religion

gilroyb

I thought religion was the old economics?

simu

utopian wrote:

Can you provide an example of a specific question to which both religion and economics provide an answer?

Well, these questions are more a feature of these popular economics books rather than the academic discipline itself but how to live your life, what your place is in the world, that sort of thing.

jrey1981

I think the psychology side of your question is more bound up in consumerism, as Ireland has transformed from a religious / semi-religious society to a consumerist one.

Economics will explain the broader global picture in this context, er, I think, which would explain the popularity of books like Freakonomics and The Popes Children.

Earthhorse

I'm not sure that books like Freakonomics and The Pope's Children really appeal to people who weren't already, in some small way at least, interested and informed on the subject.

I'd also doubt that anybody is looking to economics to answer questions about their own lives but rather questions about the world at large e.g. why do drug dealers live with their moms?

bonkey

simu wrote:

now, it seems, increasingly, to be seen as a fount of explanations for many of the more puzzling aspects of life and a way to find an identity (i.e. - what socio-economic pattern do you fall into?). These were the types of questions answered by religion or psychology in the past but it seems that the appeal of these two has worn off.

Thoughts?

I would look at it slightly differently.

Religion is falling out / has fallen out of favour in this regard because - lets face it - it simply made up the answers. Religion doesn't explain why people are the way they are. Religion tells people to live a certain way, and doesn't address the question of why they do what they're told...or don't do it, as the case may be.

Psychology offers some understanding, but ultimately runs into a brick wall.

Why does JoeBloggs do X...because psychology says he's <insert trait here>, just like so many other people. And why are so many people exhibiting these common traits???. Psychology is no longer the tool for such abstractions. It will tell you why the individual does or doesn't, but not why society exibits trends.

Thus, sociology, and subsequently socio-economics come to the fore. They too have limits and limitations, and sooner or later we'll ask the questions which have to reach beyond those...and who knows....

Today, though, this is where we're at. Economics (I'd say socio-economics, but lets not quibble) may indeed be the new religion/psychology...but only in that it is the "bleeding edge" for our questions about why we are the way we are. It deals with groups - with societies and not with individuals...and thats what we're questioning at the moment.

jc

fly_agaric

simu wrote:

These were the types of questions answered by religion or psychology in the past but it seems that the appeal of these two has worn off.

Thoughts?

The "economy" is the new God in some ways. The economists would be a priest-class then I suppose and in the silly analogy "economics" is like reading chicken guts and knowing what the right prayers are.:D

Look at the other thread on Immigration. Its taken as an axiom that Ireland "needs" one of the highest levels of immigration on Earth becuase, well, because, we must, we must keep the growth rate of "the economy" (our new God) up.
That is what all the "priests" tell us anyway.

I suppose the old cliche of shopping (esp. as a recreational activity on Sundays) as the new prayer and worship is a good fit for the analogy too.

edit: This fits better than I thought - shopping as a form of worship of the Economy God (worship gives sustenanace) and not spending your money as a religious taboo...

fly_agaric

Econometrics combined with micro economic theorising are probably the closest thing the social sciences currently have to a scientific method. Their application to less traditional areas has been productive and so economics seems to be in vouge at the moment.

Economics outlines or at least tries to outline how a society can best go about maximizing welfare/utility/~happiness. The normative reasons for seeking utility are more philosophic than economic. Philosophy sets the questions and economics answers them. Welfare economics would be the branch of economics which is on the borderline with philosophy. It's in this (esoteric) branch of economics in which foundations of economics are formed. Yet this is the area of economics which is one of the least well known.

It's best to remember that almost all conclusions in economics are derived from a utilitarian, consequentialist base of reasoning. If you disagree with these, you will most likely disagree with the conclusions of positive economics.

fly_agaric wrote:

Its taken as an axiom that Ireland "needs" one of the highest levels of immigration on Earth becuase, well, because, we must, we must keep the growth rate of "the economy" (our new God) up.
That is what all the "priests" tell us anyway.

That is not taken as an axiom

Optimum growth is not the same thing as maximum growth. The push for maximum growth is more to do with the realtionship between big business and government than economists and government. Douthwaite and Mishan wrote good books on economic growth.

You also may be better off laying the blame for consumerism and self gratification at the door of romaticism rather than economics.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote:

Optimum growth is not the same thing as maximum growth. The push for maximum growth is more to do with the realtionship between big business and government than economists and government. Douthwaite and Mishan wrote good books on economic growth.

Okay, so the priests are totally innocent and any problems are all our own fault for serving the wrong God (the economy - big business).:D

Deleted User wrote:

You also may be better off laying the blame for consumerism and self gratification at the door of romaticism rather than economics.

the real ramon

I'd agree that economics is trying to answer questions previously the reserve of first religion and then psychology, but I have another question: Is it simply enough to observe and quantify or is it, as Marx said, to change the world?

Incidently anthropology has a different set of reasons for why people do what they do, but it is in disagreement with everything else. I don't know enough about any of the above disciplines to make a judgement, though, on which is closer to hitting the nail on the head. From the basic understanding I have on anthropolgy I'd be inclined in it's direction, but I'd need to investigate further