R&D vs Economists, death struggle extraordinaire

europerson

Nietzschean wrote:

where are these graphs? proof that economists are more essential to the economy than R&D? R&D can bring funding into the college from the govt and private industry.....let the econmists whore themselves out to companies if they need more money, if yer a valueable asset to the college then it should be able to cash in on that.

Here's the proof.

Nietzschean

europerson wrote:

Here's the proof.

Firstly surely you's have been taught never to treat any report as proof?

also, there is one point on p11 which entirely invalidates the report from this discussion :

Booze Allen Hamilton Global Innovation 1000 wrote:

These findings seem to suggest that any any given time there's only so much research that a company can nurture and commercialize. Beyond that, the company provides a public service -- valuable to society perhaps, but not to its shareholders

Which does seem to imply in the context of a university, if the research is too much for it, which is something quite difficult to assess, its surplus will provide a public service.

Also the chart on P11 implies that its a much better option to err on the side of potentially slightly over funding R&D rather than underfunding.

Also this entire report is rather slanted away from having high R&D budgets and i would wonder if it was comissioned to do such, a prime example would be:

Furthermore, the $489 million Apple puts into R&D is not even one tenth the ammount spenty by IBM

Anyone who would go about writing a report like this would be well aware that Apple doesn't require the same research as ibm does, for one the ibooks, powerbooks most complicated components are researched and built by companies like ibm(i.e. PowerPC processor). So such a direct comparason of their R&D spends is entirely pointless.

This entire paper seems like a gross over-simplification of the industries involved, and its general recommendations on pages 12 - 14 are either pretty obvious or worthy of a dilbert strip.

Another example of uneducated comment could easily be:

And Samsung manages its pipeline with great efficiency: For example, from 2000 to 2002, the company increased its number of new product introductions by 67 percent( to 30,000) without increasing the number of parts required

Such moves are common throughout most of the industries Samsung is involved in due to standardisation of alot of things, also alot of standards have matured which have led to standard interfaces surviving longer.

Also there seems to have been no long term statistics done on the proformance of companies compared with their R&D spend, mention of special cases, but they were all well known special cases which wouldn't reflect any industry standard.


I think the report just goes to show people can make figures show any view point they like.


...Also its probally worth noting as this was done of the top 1000 companies, to even consider tcd as being relevent is a bit mad...

Time Magazine

Nietzschean wrote:

Firstly surely you's have been taught never to treat any report as proof?

In fairness, europerson knows quite a bit about accepting the authenticity of reports; particularly ones on economic matters.

Furthermore, he gave you an example; not one report.

How does The Economist suit you, Sir?

Nietzschean

94th and 80th? not a massive difference there, and if they can improve the science ranking by funding it better and its also able to bring in more grant and industry funding?

And the course ranking isn't solely done by the college isn't there some govt ranking scheme it was based on?

AB wrote:

In fairness, europerson knows quite a bit about accepting the authenticity of reports; particularly ones on economic matters.

europerson wrote:

Here's the proof.

AB wrote:

Furthermore, he gave you an example; not one report.

Nuff said?

AB wrote:

How does The Economist suit you, Sir?

I do believe i addressed where this report fell down, and how illconcieved alot of the comparasons are. Infact it is commented on the report that the metric(to which you refer) is far from ideal but is just well recognised.

Time Magazine

Nietzschean wrote:

94th and 80th? not a massive difference there, and if they can improve the science ranking by funding it better and its also able to bring in more grant and industry funding?

It's very significant when you consider how badly funded (e.g.) economics is. If we want one if the top 50 it's the way to go. Your logic about funding is equally applicable to all areas of College. In fact, given the low levels of corporate funding in my School, there're probably greater opportunities there. I'm sure the TN will pick up on this.

And the course ranking isn't solely done by the college isn't there some govt ranking scheme it was based on?

THES = Times Higher Education Supplement. It's not done by the College at all.

I do believe i addressed where this report fell down

No you didn't. I provided another report, this time in The Economist; a highly respected academic journal in its field.

and how illconcieved alot of the comparasons are. Infact it is commented on the report that the metric(to which you refer) is far from ideal but is just well recognised.

Bad comparisons? A linear regression between growth and R&D spending a bad comparison? What would you suggest as a better, macro-level, economic assessment?

The graph I linked to shows a very large sample (n>500 iirc) of how R&D grows the economy. And it's not very flattering. These figures are not just a debasable report; it's a specific report handed out by the aforementioned Dr Barrett to support his claims that R&D is a hype-bubble and doesn't deliver the gains that are regularly thought of it. This guy knows his economic analysis. I hate to agree with him, but Minister McDowell seemingly got it fairly right when he said "Research and development is a myth".

This is off-topic though, and I'm sure Ian will tire of an economics debate soon anyway. Back to ARAM.

Nietzschean

Angry Banana wrote:

It's very significant when you consider how badly funded (e.g.) economics is. If we want one if the top 50 it's the way to go. Your logic about funding is equally applicable to all areas of College. In fact, given the low levels of corporate funding in my School, there're probably greater opportunities there. I'm sure the TN will pick up on this.

Erm, your assuming the rest of the college is so much better funded? wanna have a look at the building my dept is in vs. yours? i don't think the risk of cavein's is too high in the arts block.......

No you didn't. I provided another report, this time in The Economist; a highly respected academic journal in its field.

Referring to the Economist as an academic journal seems a stretch, but that debate can wait for another time. You failed to actually look at that picture, its from the Booze Allen report, it says it right there under that Source heading......

Bad comparisons?

Taking a snaphot of Sales Vs R&D spending over a 5 year period says little, considering as their entire point is that R&D has been ramped up hugely during this time, probally due to being underfunded previous to it. Also there is no longterm comparasons, 5 years isn't enough time for most technologies to get from invention to commercialisation(e.g. holographic storage).

The graph I linked to shows a very large sample (n>500 iirc) of how R&D grows the economy. And it's not very flattering.

for public listed companies a sample size of ~1000 is still small, and they chose the top 1000, in my opinion is flawed to begin with, they must have had access to that data for several thousand companies, but maybe the results didn't fit what they were looking for? Looking at the top 1000 spenders on R&D seems silly when you want to show the effect of R&D spending from under-spend to over-spend.

These figures are not just a debasable report; it's a specific report handed out by the aforementioned Dr Barrett to support his claims that R&D is a hype-bubble and doesn't deliver the gains that are regularly thought of it.

I don't know who this Dr Barrett is, nor do i really care. I've pointed out the errors in this report as I see them and quoting names that mean nothing to me to give the report more weight isn't going to help.

This guy knows his economic analysis.

Like any field, its rare enough you'll see an unbiased report, depending on who's funding it and yada yada yada. Even 'if' the economist was a respected journal, in this day and age that means little, that whole Bell Labs fiasco anyone?

I hate to agree with him, but Minister McDowell seemingly got it fairly right when he said "Research and development is a myth".

Rightttt...and that adds much to our debate. I hear Declan Cockburn says R&D is key to all big business, does that mean i win?

This is off-topic though, and I'm sure Ian will tire of an economics debate soon anyway.

Just proving how little you know me.

Time Magazine

Nietzschean wrote:

Erm, your assuming the rest of the college is so much better funded? wanna have a look at the building my dept is in vs. yours? i don't think the risk of cavein's is too high in the arts block...

Not assuming, no. Knowing. Look, for example, at today's TN to see who's doing well in college. And if you'd like to assess rates of capital expenditure in College bring it on .

Referring to the Economist as an academic journal seems a stretch

Perhaps when you don't know The Economist well it would. Yes, it's a weekly magazine (actually a newspaper) but if you browse towards the back of it you'll see genuine academia. Furthermore, their "surveys" are held in the highest regard in both the business and academic world. Behind the Harvard Business Review, it is listed as the most influential publication in the world. It is listed as core reading in some courses in BESS, and supplemental reading in most all. Regularly, lecturers refer to it for academic thoughts played out in a real-world setting; such as the effect on R&D.

You failed to actually look at that picture

No, I think you're wrong there.

its from the Booze Allen report, it says it right there under that Source heading.....[sic]

The report is flawed. The empirical analysis is unquestionable. There are similar empirical studies also done in this area, whole PhD's on it, that produce similar reports. Me and europerson are just taking the one from The Economist because it saves a trip down to the Ussher basement; which you won't get us to do. Well maybe he will. I'm telling you now, as someone who's studying this exact area, the effects of R&D on economic growth and moving to the knowledge-economy are exagerrated.

Taking a snaphot of Sales Vs R&D spending over a 5 year period says little

I'd strongly disagree. It is, at the very least, indicative. Additionally, surely you know about Student's t-distribution and the normal z-distribution. The standard pre-requisite for z is n>30. n>500 is fine. You can ask any social scientist on this. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it unquestionably, empirically proven that such a high observation count will, in the vast majority of cases be within a 2% margin of error? Of course.

considering as their entire point is that R&D has been ramped up hugely during this time, probally due to being underfunded previous to it. Also there is no longterm comparasons, 5 years isn't enough time for most technologies to get from invention to commercialisation(e.g. holographic storage).

There are, of course, observations excluded that will alter the result. But, using empirical testings, it can be assumed that there will be roughly as many to the right as to the left of the line. This is fact, Ian.

for public listed companies a sample size of ~1000 is still small

No it's not.

and they chose the top 1000, in my opinion is flawed to begin with

I completely agree, it overstates the success rate. Economies of scale and J. B. Barney's (empirically backed) theory of development.

they must have had access to that data for several thousand companies, but maybe the results didn't fit what they were looking for?

Right, question the authority of a report supported by Fellows and highly-respected journals. Keep digging. Who says they must have had access to the data? R&D spending is not openly available in a company's financial accounts. There's also a bit of a gaping flaw in your argument. If they chose the top firms, why would these wonderfully successful firms that gained real growth from R&D not be included by default? As I said, n is large so the argument that "they're not big enough to be that big" does not stand up.

Basically what you're doing here is a half-assed attempt to question all of social sciences' merits. Yet again, bring it on .

Looking at the top 1000 spenders on R&D seems silly when you want to show the effect of R&D spending from under-spend to over-spend.

Wood, trees? Their analysis is irrelevant. Their empirical findings are not. Think about it Ian, why did I only include the graph?

I don't know who this Dr Barrett is, nor do i really care. I've pointed out the errors in this report as I see them and quoting names that mean nothing to me to give the report more weight isn't going to help.

*Sigh*. You call the authenticity of this report into question yet you "don't care" who supports it, even when it's a perfect argument for it. Hmm, perhaps that should read because it's a perfect argument for it.

Like any field, its rare enough you'll see an unbiased report

Here you go again...

depending on who's funding it and yada yada yada. Even 'if' the economist was a respected journal, in this day and age that means little, that whole Bell Labs fiasco anyone?

You know, you've got me there. There is no point in trusting reputed sources or academics anymore because of the wole Bell Labs fiasco. A century and a half of reputation would indeed be sacrificed just to piss Ian off on his R&D tangent. Come off it. I've offered you evidence to show that it is a verifiable, reproducable reports and you, quote, "don't care".

Rightttt...and that adds much to our debate. I hear Declan Cockburn says R&D is key to all big business, does that mean i win?

No, because Declan Cockburn is not an authority on the economic merits of R&D. Do you want me to do a diagram for you? If you can back up your assertion, with strong empirical basis, with

Just proving how little you know me.

Actually I was basing it on this thread where you just stopped arguing with me about College economics. Heh, proving how little you know me actually. Dontcha just love reverse psychology? .

Guys, shut up. There are a lot of people viewing this thread who wish to learn about ARAM, not look at your squabbles! Can a mod split this please? Especially the last two* posts.

*three, including my own.

Boston

Please can this be splitt, this thread is being referenced to allto of people, for whom aram is extremely important.

ApeXaviour

Okay done. Can continue the "debate" now unhindered

europerson

I object to the title of this newly-split thread. Economists are not against R&D! We just want to see resources used as efficiently as possible (within College). If this means a different distribution of resources within College, then so be it.

John

Hate to say it Ian but I think Enda is winning here. I've nothing to contribute to the debate (as interesting as it is) but this sticks out as an annoyance to me:

Angry Banana wrote:

Right, question the authority of a report supported by Fellows and highly-respected journals.

A lot of crackpot theories have been supported by well respected people (TCD even named a library after the guy who added up all the ages of people in the bible to find out the exact date of creation :rolleyes:). Basically what I'm saying is that you should question everything, no matter how reputable the source. That's what makes all sciences work (including social sciences). I don't believe everything I see in Nature and I certainly don't take everything that fellows say as gospel.

DrIndy

John2 wrote:

Hate to say it Ian but I think Enda is winning here. I've nothing to contribute to the debate (as interesting as it is) but this sticks out as an annoyance to me:

Yore Ma!

(I win the debate)

europerson

DrIndy wrote:

Yore Ma!

(I win the debate)

No, no, you don't.

John

I think you'll find that under debating rules that he does.

Nietzschean

Angry Banana wrote:

Not assuming, no. Knowing. Look, for example, at today's TN to see who's doing well in college. And if you'd like to assess rates of capital expenditure in College bring it on .

I haven't seen the TN so i can't comment on that.

Perhaps when you don't know The Economist well it would. Yes, it's a weekly magazine (actually a newspaper) but if you browse towards the back of it you'll see genuine academia. Furthermore, their "surveys" are held in the highest regard in both the business and academic world.

I've been reading the Economist on and off for what must be 10 years now, so i'm aware of what it is and isn't. Personally i'd put it up beside something like 'Physics World' to draw a comparason in a different field. If this is the most scientific your field goes into with papers fair enough.....we have journals n such for these things.

The report is flawed. The empirical analysis is unquestionable.

Now your just playing on symantecs, the report's focus in its data is very questionable in its quality imo as i'll detail below. Hence while the empirical analysis(i don't see the calculations in that report) maybe correct, that doesn't mean the analysis paints an accurate picture of the sector by any stretch.

There are similar empirical studies also done in this area, whole PhD's on it, that produce similar reports. Me and europerson are just taking the one from The Economist because it saves a trip down to the Ussher basement; which you won't get us to do. Well maybe he will.

Ordinarily i'd be happy to read any recommended reading on the topic, and may request more detail post my finals, but for the moment i'll just have to take your word on that.

I'm telling you now, as someone who's studying this exact area, the effects of R&D on economic growth and moving to the knowledge-economy are exagerrated.

I won't deny its potentially exagerrated, but to quote AB's original assertion :

ab wrote:

Finally, and all your science whores will hate this, but the emphasis on R&D in general is bull****.

This is an entirely different kettle of fish, an emphasis on R&D has been the corner stone of several successfull companies(e.g. IBM).

I'd strongly disagree. It is, at the very least, indicative. Additionally, surely you know about Student's t-distribution and the normal z-distribution. The standard pre-requisite for z is n>30. n>500 is fine. You can ask any social scientist on this. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it unquestionably, empirically proven that such a high observation count will, in the vast majority of cases be within a 2% margin of error? Of course.


There are, of course, observations excluded that will alter the result. But, using empirical testings, it can be assumed that there will be roughly as many to the right as to the left of the line. This is fact, Ian.

Stop claiming things are facts randomly, it doesn't help your arguement.

My point was and still is, they have taken an extreemly poor sample set, the top 1000 R&D spenders, not the top 1000 companies even. And given the likely variance within public trading markets a sample set proportional to this variance would be expected. Declaring it as fact that the results will be within a 2% margin of error without knowing any sort of std. dev or variance seems silly, one would need these figures to ascribe the number of sufficent test cases to get within this accuracy.

Economies of scale and J. B. Barney's (empirically backed) theory of development.

While I wouldn't dispute as mention'd in the report that economies of scale would have a big influence on these, my point still stands that they picked the top 1000 R&D spenders, which given that the test is based on an R&D spend vs sales would be flawed, top 1000 companies maybe. But selecting companies based on a statistical variable you wish to use in later calculation taints your sample space imo.

Right, question the authority of a report supported by Fellows and highly-respected journals. Keep digging.

Er did you actually look up the Bell Labs Fiasco i mention'd? bell labs was one of the most if not the most respected lab in the world, and it turned out alot of papers that came out had massive holes and problems. All were peer reviewed, or were supposed to have been and passed.

Who says they must have had access to the data? R&D spending is not openly available in a company's financial accounts.

And yet that is where they got their data....

Booze Allen Report wrote:

The top 1,000 companies were ranked on the basis of the R&D spending reported in their 2004 financial statements.

There's also a bit of a gaping flaw in your argument. If they chose the top firms, why would these wonderfully successful firms that gained real growth from R&D not be included by default? As I said, n is large so the argument that "they're not big enough to be that big" does not stand up.

Well my statement regarding the timeframe and posssible explosion of R&D spending I believe addresses alot of that, taking snap shots from a 5 yr period maybe could be classed as indicitive, but nothing nearly as concrete as the report makes out. I believe i've addressed my view on the "they're not big enough to be that big" previously.

Basically what you're doing here is a half-assed attempt to question all of social sciences' merits. Yet again, bring it on .

Actually thats just entirely stupid. Infact economics is one of my favorite subjects, which has its merits. Stop assuming because i question the results of one report(i've not seen any others) that I'm questioning an entire field. What did we learn in under siege 2 about assumptions?

Wood, trees? Their analysis is irrelevant. Their empirical findings are not.

I think i've addressed before why their empirical findings are questionable in usefullness.

*Sigh*. You call the authenticity of this report into question yet you "don't care" who supports it, even when it's a perfect argument for it. Hmm, perhaps that should read because it's a perfect argument for it.

Need i refer you to the bell labs issue again? I don't trust anything as gospel regardless of what field and who wrote it. Thats what causes poor papers to be accepted in the first place. I'm perfectly happy to read further data and analysis on the R&D spending setup when i've time, but based on that report i'm no where near convinced.

Here you go again...

I could say the same about you.

You know, you've got me there. There is no point in trusting reputed sources or academics anymore because of the wole Bell Labs fiasco. A century and a half of reputation would indeed be sacrificed just to piss Ian off on his R&D tangent. Come off it. I've offered you evidence to show that it is a verifiable, reproducable reports and you, quote, "don't care".

Uh back to bell labs again.... lovely to go around in circles, your belief that this is a massive hole in my arguement is funny. Bell Labs has a much longer history than half a century, and yet.....

No, because Declan Cockburn is not an authority on the economic merits of R&D.

Like i said, quoting names does nothing for me, it might be his belief, but just because he believes it and has some lovely figures to back it up is great, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned.

Do you want me to do a diagram for you? If you can back up your assertion, with strong empirical basis, with

Sure us simple maths folkes need diagrams when it comes to simple statistics :rolleyes:

Actually I was basing it on this thread where you just stopped arguing with me about College economics.

Thats super, you ever stop to think i had accepted your points as valid? or you need to get back on that soap box?

Heh, proving how little you know me actually.

I never made sweeping statements about your personality now did I?

Dontcha just love reverse psychology? .

Which ? what ? now? where ?

Running Bing

Nietzschean wrote:

If this is the most scientific your field goes into with papers fair enough.....we have journals n such for these things.

ouch, watch the nails.

Nietzschean

it wasn't ment to be bitchy, it being a social science or whatever there might be no need for the seperate (and usually ultra boring) acacdemic journals we have....

xeduCat

Believe me, as someone who occasionally shelves them, there are rows and rows of nonsensical academic journals in the social sciences, including economics.

DrIndy

xeduCat wrote:

Believe me, as someone who occasionally shelves them, there are rows and rows of nonsensical academic journals in the social sciences, including economics.

What about Law?

I think you'll find that under debating rules that he does.

I do, its true. got taught that by a law student and its frequently used in debates in the GMB to silence opposition and counter discourse

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

I'm a subscriber to the Economist and think it is a brilliant distiller of economic, finance, and political news. But, it is most definitely not suitable for academic reference past the undergraduate and (taught) Masters stages.

Academic publications are reviewed by peers and experts in your area before they are published. This is very different to the Economist where articles will be, at least partially, selected based on their popularity with the public.

There are very few boring journals. This is an opinion that is usually based on not sufficiently knowing the subject area of the journal. It would not make financial sense to publish a journal if it did not attract a suitably large academic audience. Multi-billion euro companies like Elsevier do not publish journals unless they know people are demanding them. They regularly purge unsuccessful journals.

Having said that, there are clearly some journals that do fall into the 'useless' (as opposed to boring) category. They are published simply to give academics an opportunity to publish, and thus boost their chances of promotion in academia.

There are a number of ways of ranking the popularity and usefulness of journals.

George Frankfurter gave a good guide to journals in a paper i can't find off-hand. Himself and one of his colleagues write on the philosophy of financial economics. One of their classic papers looked at the connections between the religious (?) practice of shamanism and financial economics publishing. In the paper i'm thinking of he divided publications into three categories:

A Journals: Publications in this journals will usually change or confirm major theories within their area (e.g. American Economic Review).
B Journals: These tend to be narrower in scope and aimed at a smaller niche audience. Also, you may find publications here that are good, but not good enough to be published in A journals.
C Journals: You wouldn't wish publication in these journals on your worst enemy.

The library also provides a database called the Journal Citation Record which ranks journals. AFAIK The Economist is not ranked on the economics section, simply because it is not academically rigourous enough.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

xeduCat wrote:

Believe me, as someone who occasionally shelves them, there are rows and rows of nonsensical academic journals in the social sciences, including economics.

Can't think of a single 'nonsensical' economics journal in the library, despite five years of browsing them. Think it might be because you don't understand them. Which journals are you thinking of?

Time Magazine

But don't The Economist have a specifically economic journal? I was sure I saw it down there.

Maybe I misread the name. I was only skimming over.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

No, maybe the library bind the economist together to make it look like a journal. The economist also provide some detailed economic analysis reports under the title "Economist Intelligence Unit". There is a journal called "Economics Journal", that the library subscribes to, so maybe that is it.

Time Magazine

Oh right grand. Sorry.

I retract the statement calling it a respected academic journal, and replace it with "it's a very well-respect authority on economic issues". .

gilroyb

Roundtower2 wrote:

Can't think of a single 'nonsensical' economics journal in the library, despite five years of browsing them. Think it might be because you don't understand them. Which journals are you thinking of?

I believe he meant it as a complement to Economics. Earlier in the thread there was a suggestion that Economics didn't have the same academic rigor that other sciences may have. In other words, that the economist would in any way be considered an economic journal. xEduCat was simply making the point that there is a huge amount of academic research within the field. For the record I consider the Economist a somewhat enjoyable read, in the same way I consider the Trinity News an enjoyable read. It has some information on some issues, but is generally hit and miss.

Time Magazine

gilroyb wrote:

I consider the Trinity News an enjoyable read. It has some information on some issues, but is generally hit and miss.

Much like last year's SER...

gilroyb

Angry Banana wrote:

Much like last year's SER...

lol. Much like the SER in general. Last year was a hit, all others are a miss.

Nietzschean

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/1238215&from=rss
...soo anyway there could be abit of a R&D bubble... 1bn on msn R&D, loike wtf.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

tbh any money spent on msn R&D is probably wasted - seems little more than a spam site. but, just because you spend a lot of money on R&D doesn't make it a bubble. it's more the direction the R&D is focused on.

Bit like college last week announcing being awarded 1.5 million (or something like that) for nanotechnology. Yet, from what i've heard about the area, it seems very 'bubbly', there even seems to be doubt about what the area is from practictioners in the area. But, it is the 'hot' area, and everyone wants to fund it. It must be taking away from funding for more proven and productive, but less fashionable, research departments in college.

xeduCat

Gilroyb has me right - I meant that there were many journals that were academically rigorous enough within economics to be truly incomprehensible to a novice like me, as opposed to the Economist, which has joined me on many a long journey. So a backhanded big-up to the economists, or something.

cuckoo

Why are economics students so bolshy? I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor, so why do economics students so ardently argue the case for their own personal views of how The World Should Be Run?

ETA: i'm not having a dig at economics folk, i'm just wondering if that's the way the courses are taught, or something.

ApeXaviour

cuckoo wrote:

Why are economics students so bolshy? I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor, so why do economics students so ardently argue the case for their own personal views of how The World Should Be Run?

ETA: i'm not having a dig at economics folk, i'm just wondering if that's the way the courses are taught, or something.

Wow.. well said cuckoo!

Couldn't agree more.

shay_562

Why are economics students so bolshy? I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor, so why do economics students so ardently argue the case for their own personal views of how The World Should Be Run?

1) I haven't studied it, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the knowledge involved in building a nuclear reactor are considerably more specific and in-depth than the kind of general economic principles being discussed in this thread. So studying nuclear reactor-building is a more focused skill and therefore one you'd need to extremely well-read on, rather than just having "glanced at a few articles", whereas talking about general economics is a tad simpler. That said...

2) Your average layperson will tend to think/care less about nuclear reactors than they will about the economy; very few people will offer opinions on the construction of a nuclear reactor (or any other kind of in-depth scientific principle), whereas most people assume that because they live and function with an economy, they understand it. Even with your limited knowledge of nuclear reactors, you'd presumably be a tad annoyed if some random person started assuming that they knew as much as (if not more than) you despite having studied it far less and being blatantly wrong about the subject. Such seems to be the case here (I assume. I don't know enough about economics to judge who's right here, but without wanting to offend Dec or anyone else, I'd tend to back Enda in an economic debate).

gilroyb

cuckoo wrote:

Why are economics students so bolshy? I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor, so why do economics students so ardently argue the case for their own personal views of how The World Should Be Run?

ETA: i'm not having a dig at economics folk, i'm just wondering if that's the way the courses are taught, or something.

The discussion here is a range of opinions, you're probably right that you shouldn't be let run a nuclear reactor, but what's to stop you using your knowledge to make suggestions for the design of one if that's what's being discussed? There is a difference between talking about something and designing/running it.

Most economists wouldn't say that only economists can discuss the economy, but the social and financial questions involved in the economy are obviously something that interests people who choose to study economics. If for some reason they hadn't been able to study economics they probably would still get involved in these discussions because it is an area that they're interested in.

Time Magazine

Nuclear scientists know how to run nuclear plants; people like me know nothing about science and don't attempt to argue with them.
Economists know how to run the economy; people like Ian think they can run it better.





















Do I smell burning? Or just a burn in general?

Cuckoo, much of it is the other way around. Nuclear physics is undisputable and non-emotional. Economics is indisputable in effect but not in a what's right kinda way. I can say with confidence that a high minimum wage will create unemployment. I cannot specifically state that that's right or wrong, unlike nuclear physics. People can make assertions, like say Liouville's assertion that it's not fair to open e.g. the Lecky and not the Hamilton (a more applicable situation is something like "low taxes for the wealthy is bad") and justify on ethical grounds rather than scientific and thus there exists potential for argument. Nuclear scientists all agree that, say, fission > fusion. Economists all agree that, say, minimum wage in excess is bad. Both are true. One can be argued in hand-waving, a "my mate Jimmy" kind of a way; the other cannot. For the most part, we're not up our own arses as we appear. That said I am fully aware of the problem of economists failing to see people as more than a variable. As one lecturer put it poignantly, and as (imo) people like Right_Side regularly miss, a wage is not a price - it's a living. That makes us appear fascist when in fact we're often as socially-minded as the gimps who want 70% tax rates. I was discussing this with my dad today actually. <rant>My dad was a shop stewart in his union once upon a time. Actually no, that's far too tangental. I'll stop now, I won't bore you all. Basically, the moral of the story is that he appreciates that low tax rates bring higher revenues which in the last couple of weeks delivered a new bus route within about 30 metres of my house. It's the stupid (and I hate to say it) unionisation effect that means it only runs twice a day and that the route is not even advertised on the website yet. G'wan, tomorrow I'll get the 66D at 7:50am (not if I don't go to bed soon I won't), see if you can find mention of it on the website. Actually, for God's sake, I went into a rant. Okay, bye.</rant>

Thirdfox

Agree with Shay there... economics/philosophy/law( ) can all be abstractly debated about, whereas nuclear fission operation is very much substantial and physically tangible.

Economists talk about the economy, lawyers talk about law, doctors talk about medicine. A fair comparison would be made if a medicine student started talking about why a certain medical proceedure should not be allowed - it may seem strange to us who don't study the subject but they do learn about it 24/7...

Having read the posts here I didn't find that Angry Banana or Europerson (don't know their real names, too late in the night to find them again) express a way that the world should be run, instead they are offering their opinions on how funding should be used in Trinity. Before, I thought R & D was a holy grail of some sorts and just from reading these few posts has at least started myself thinking about the validity of the claims that both sides make.

Then again it is 1:21 in the morning so I could be writing codswallop.

Thirdfox

As a matter of interest, Angry Banana, how do you think the college should invest itself to raise more funds/prestige/international recognition (or should we be wanting these things at all?)

Time Magazine

Short answer: hire Barry Scott to front an advertising campaign.

Longer, more theoretical answer: this, per se, is not a question of economics. Economics can be roughly decoded into the study of the economy at large or the economics of an individual. Although many of its tools can be used as an analytical framework for how College should maximise its aims, its a little useless to consider the aims of a university - far more useful if the government want to submerge a university as a body to further its goals. If you're asking me as a College nerd with an interest in this sort of thing as distinct from an economics nerd, you'll havta hang on - see below.

Long answer: is way too complex to type at this time.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

cuckoo wrote:

I mean, i've had a few nuclear physics courses, read text books on it, even glanced at a few journal articles. But, i don't think i should be let design or run a nuclear reactor...

1. Showing a bit of lack of confidence in your abilities there cuckoo. Why shouldn't you build a nuclear power plant?

If you ARE building a nuclear power plant, give me a call, i've picked up a few helpful hints from the Simpsons... (hint 1: check all power-plant employees on their way home to check whether some uranium sticks have accidentally lodged in their clothing)


2. Why is Trinity teaching nuclear physics?

cuckoo

Interesting responses.....

What i don't think i expressed myself very well is that there seems to be such a different ethos in the teaching between the 'dismal science' and the ones down in the Hamilton - in the Physics building we'd rarely (if ever) actually challenge anything a lecturer says and nothing is discussed, it's chalk and talk in the lecture theatres, then in the labs much of the time is 'hmmm, have i plugged this in the right way?'. That's the nature of the subjects, there's no arguing that 2+2=5.

Maybe arts block subjects, with the independent thought that is developed, is a more rounded education, and the sciences are a training?

But, while i was being a little facile with my comment about me building nuclear reactors (although, i think the old lego set is still in my parents attic..), i know i don't have the experience to design one. However, living and working and all that experience have left me with a pile of uneducated opinions about economics.

And, Angry Banana touched on this in one of his posts, while the theoretical concepts of economics are debated back and forth in essays, tutorials, and threads on boards.ie I look at them (well, the posts on boards, i'm not bugging tutorial rooms) and get a bit annoyed, because wages and employee rights and taxes are more than just concepts.

Nietzschean

Angry Banana wrote:

Nuclear scientists know how to run nuclear plants;

Actually the vast majority of them wouldn't......

people like me know nothing about science and don't attempt to argue with them.

Given the right topic i doubt that.

Economists know how to run the economy; people like Ian think they can run it better.

not jumping for the bait....

Do I smell burning? Or just a burn in general?

Do i smell a pending banning? ooo i think i do.

Nuclear scientists all agree that, say, fission > fusion.

Hrmm i think you prove your own point, other way around

For the most part, we're not up our own arses as we appear.

Haha, couldn't have said it better myself.

Cuckoo wrote:

What i don't think i expressed myself very well is that there seems to be such a different ethos in the teaching between the 'dismal science' and the ones down in the Hamilton - in the Physics building we'd rarely (if ever) actually challenge anything a lecturer says and nothing is discussed, it's chalk and talk in the lecture theatres, then in the labs much of the time is 'hmmm, have i plugged this in the right way?'. That's the nature of the subjects, there's no arguing that 2+2=5.

Maybe arts block subjects, with the independent thought that is developed, is a more rounded education, and the sciences are a training?

I think its more like what enda says, for you to challange a phy lecturer on most stuff you'd really want to know your crap(which you really wouldn't without a phd n a few post doc's), where's i dunno not to sound insulting econ/arts can be a bit more wishy washy, its just not so clear cut...

Thats not to say the physists are right all the time, but gawd it does take alot of learning to even figure out some of the eqn's we do, nevermind to understand them and the theory to the point of challanging stuff....

Pet

Science is certainly more of "Shut up and listen to what I say because it's fact" than arts, so I guess we do miss out on the whole "think for yourself" aspect, or at least we get less of it than the arts heads do.

But, for ****s and giggles you can always be an awkward **** like me and say, while discussing evolution, "but wait, what if Creationism is actually true?", just to irritate the knowitall scientists...

(plus, it's generally a good idea to question everything you're told anyway)

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Pet wrote:

Science is certainly more of "Shut up and listen to what I say because it's fact" than arts, so I guess we do miss out on the whole "think for yourself" aspect, or at least we get less of it than the arts heads do.

This is the problem that the social sciences run into when they try to auto-adopt philosophies of research like those of Karl Popper - there are far more definites in science as you say...

Time Magazine

Nietzschean wrote:

Actually the vast majority of them wouldn't......

Right so. People who run nuclear plants don't know how to run nuclear platns. Fair enough.

Given the right topic i doubt that.

Well I said I don't know anything about it; for it to be the right topic I would know something about it wouldn't it? .

not jumping for the bait....

Nothing more to say, no?

Do i smell a pending banning? ooo i think i do.

For what, exactly? Can you not take it as well?

Hrmm i think you prove your own point, other way around

Two points:
i) it was theoretical. It was not a specific point. Thus the ", say,". I could have used x and z but so what?
ii) If they don't know how to run nuclear plants would many advocate using a technology which is maybe 50 years away from proper exploitation??

I think its more like what enda says, for you to challange a phy lecturer on most stuff you'd really want to know your crap(which you really wouldn't without a phd n a few post doc's), where's i dunno not to sound insulting econ/arts can be a bit more wishy washy, its just not so clear cut...

It's far more complicated; there are far more deviating variables in social sciences. I do recall reading that scientists said space travel was impossible because there was no force to propel from in a vacuum. Add more unknowns to the equation and you have more debate. It's not insulting, it's realistic. Social sciences are basically living without the assumption in the natural sciences of unequivocal repitition. You know the sun will rise tomorrow. Imagine science without that certainty - that's the basic problem to be overcome in social science. We pity you lot for having nothing interesting to study .

gawd/QUOTE]That's a BESS girls word. Are you really stealing our words as well as our money now? .

Nietzschean

Angry Banana wrote:

Right so. People who run nuclear plants don't know how to run nuclear platns. Fair enough.

You never said the staff of nuclear power plants, you said nuclear physists. Which are entirely different things, there is quite probally a huge ammount of engineers who deal with alot of the running of those plants.

Nothing more to say, no?

I don't fancy having the exact same arguement over and over again.

For what, exactly? Can you not take it as well?

Take what? i never tried to annoy you enda, i actually resurected this thread agreeing with you for gods sake. And btw remember you've been banned for being an annoying ****e before.....intentionally trying to piss me off didn't get you very far.

Two points:
i) it was theoretical. It was not a specific point. Thus the ", say,". I could have used x and z but so what?
ii) If they don't know how to run nuclear plants would many advocate using a technology which is maybe 50 years away from proper exploitation??

What the **** are you on about? i'm confused honistly. I was making a light hearted comment to you having fission > fusion. Where clearly fusion is by far the preferred method of energy generation where possible.

I do recall reading that scientists said space travel was impossible because there was no force to propel from in a vacuum.

Where/when? i assume that some sort of old historic thing?

Add more unknowns to the equation and you have more debate. It's not insulting, it's realistic. Social sciences are basically living without the assumption in the natural sciences of unequivocal repitition. You know the sun will rise tomorrow. Imagine science without that certainty - that's the basic problem to be overcome in social science.

Actually enda if you did study physics or any of the sciences you'd find out there is alot of unknown's in things that we have to deal with once you reach the more complex levels that people have to goto in degree studies nothing is quite so certain...e.g. predicting solar flares......

Sparks

Angry Banana wrote:

I do recall reading that scientists said space travel was impossible because there was no force to propel from in a vacuum.

You recall incorrectly; it was the New York Times in 1920 in response to a paper that had already been peer-reviewed and published the year before by Goddard. You also have to recall that it takes little to call yourself a scientist, but far much more to actually be one.

Add more unknowns to the equation and you have more debate. It's not insulting, it's realistic. Social sciences are basically living without the assumption in the natural sciences of unequivocal repitition.

If you can say that with a straight face, you know nothing of quantum mechanics or the central role that statistics and probablility and error margins come into play in experiment design.

As to why there's little questioning in engineering or science classes as opposed to Arts courses, it's because there is a large body of knowlege and technique to be mastered before someone can understand the question, let alone posit a new answer. Some remarkable minds have done so at a very young age; but the majority of students do not understand the principles they are studying sufficiently to successfully question current theories for several years more than it takes to earn a primary degree; hence the existance of taught masters courses and PhD degrees, and why most of the PhD theses written are not revolutionary. There are exceptions; one nobel prize in chemistry was awarded for work done in a PhD thesis on atomic theory, a thesis which barely passed the chemist's viva when it was written as it had so little supporting data. But the vast majority are small additions to a huge body of knowlege. Any truly new work tends to be done by postdoctoral researchers and professors.

cuckoo

Sparks wrote:

As to why there's little questioning in engineering or science classes as opposed to Arts courses, it's because there is a large body of knowlege and technique to be mastered before someone can understand the question, let alone posit a new answer. Some remarkable minds have done so at a very young age; but the majority of students do not understand the principles they are studying sufficiently to successfully question current theories for several years more than it takes to earn a primary degree; hence the existance of taught masters courses and PhD degrees, and why most of the PhD theses written are not revolutionary. There are exceptions; one nobel prize in chemistry was awarded for work done in a PhD thesis on atomic theory, a thesis which barely passed the chemist's viva when it was written as it had so little supporting data. But the vast majority are small additions to a huge body of knowlege. Any truly new work tends to be done by postdoctoral researchers and professors.

^ That's what i was trying to get at. From this science student's perspective it seems presumptious (and a tad arrogant) for economics undergrads to be arguing 'this is the way it should be done', with nary a 'imho'. I know how little i've truely grasped of what i'm trying to study.

I'm not pointing to this thread in particular, it's a vague sense i've been left with from reading many threads on this board.

So, is it all in my perception, or are economics students arrogant so and sos?

Thirdfox

Don't forget law students! (To be fair though we are encouraged in our classes to give our versions of how things should work)... come to a law lecture sometime:

Lecturer: "is it defamatory to accuse someone of being raped?"
boy: "could it be defamatory for her husband or boyfriend?"
l: "why is that?"
b: "could be an attack on his manhood."
rest of us - shocked

Time Magazine

Ian wrote:

You never said the staff of nuclear power plants, you said nuclear physists. Which are entirely different things, there is quite probally a huge ammount of engineers who deal with alot of the running of those plants.

Oh, so you were being pedantic?

And btw remember you've been banned for being an annoying ****e before.....intentionally trying to piss me off didn't get you very far.

Despite what you think, I've never intentionally tried to piss you off and of course, the definition of what an annoying ****e is more in the realm of social sciences; it's all subjective .

I was making a light hearted comment to you having fission > fusion. Where clearly fusion is by far the preferred method of energy generation where possible.

Yep I know what you were saying. As you say yourself, you're confused by response. I was writing an example. I said something along the lines of "Let's say scientists think fission > fusion", for all intents and purposes I could have said "Let's say scientists think pigs > cows" or "1 > 3", the point was irrelevant. In fact it was of such non-consequence when I got up this morning I couldn't have recalled what example I gave. The point was to establish that what scientists agree on are, generally, not questioned by the public. This is not the case with what economists agree on.

Actually enda if you did study physics or any of the sciences you'd find out there is alot of unknown's in things that we have to deal with once you reach the more complex levels that people have to goto in degree studies nothing is quite so certain...e.g. predicting solar flares......

My example was representative, not an all inclusive dogmatic statement. There is far less certainty in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. To illustrate this point, I used the example of the sun rising. Think about the bigger picture. I know things often appear random in science, such as the emission of γ-rays (are ye impressed? . Man I hope I'm not confusing my nuclear emission and half-life decay. I really didn't enjoy LC Physics) but God don't play dice. People do. (I saw it on a documentary on BBC 2).

Sparks wrote:

You recall incorrectly; it was the New York Times in 1920 in response to a paper that had already been peer-reviewed and published the year before by Goddard. You also have to recall that it takes little to call yourself a scientist, but far much more to actually be one.

Nah, I'm not referring to a NY Times article. I'm going by my pessimest Physics teacher who told us something along the lines of "accepted science has been proved wrong for centuries. I'm sure there's something in this [LC Physics] book which is inaccurate." He then went on to talk about some prominent scientist (I can't remember his name, but it rung a bell, so it was certainly someone more known to the public at large than Goddard, who I've never heard of). But my point, in general, that if you put those little blue crystals we were given in JC Chemistry in water and put them over a Bunsen tomorrow, they'll do the exact same thing as they will today. This does not apply to something like economics. Yes, I know that my example is too simplified and that modern science is not as accepted fact and so on; but the logic is perfectly applicable.

cuckoo wrote:

^ That's what i was trying to get at. From this science student's perspective it seems presumptious (and a tad arrogant) for economics undergrads to be arguing 'this is the way it should be done', with nary a 'imho'. I know how little i've truely grasped of what i'm trying to study.

I'm not pointing to this thread in particular, it's a vague sense i've been left with from reading many threads on this board.

So, is it all in my perception, or are economics students arrogant so and sos?

I don't know the details of science courses, but detailed basics (yes, such a thing exists!) of economics can be taught in two years. Take me for example, I've studied economics now for four years including the Leaving Cert. I have yet to branch out into econometrics, investment analysis, the economics of less developed countries, transport economics, food economics, industrial economics, environmental economics. These are all courses available in the sophister schedule; and this is before we get into hybrids like econophysics, neuroeconomics or something extremely specific like Marta Zieba's doctorate of Estimation of demand and production functions for German theatre and orchestral music or Dr. Jacco Thijssen's The Effect of Information Streams on Capital Budgeting Decisions paper.

Nobody would argue with Marta on German theatre of Jacco on general equilibrium effects and contingent claim valuation of financial assets. However economics is, in my opinion, the most important science. It has the most profound effects on people's lives because of its spectrum. One might said that the field of medicine is more important than economics, but medicine cannot properly be delievered without a viable economic system in place. Indeed, people cannot study economics if they're not alive; but the effect is far less pertinent to the development of economics than vice versa. As economics is the most tangible academic field, played out almost entirely by players whose employers are the public at large, it is suspect to the most inspection/opinion/debate/contribution of the average Joe. Thus, in my opinion, it's the least specialised field in public practice. Nobody cares (politically) if the civil service pick C++ administration software over a Java application; that's the preserve of the experts. Everybody cares, and rightly so, about the economic policy adopted by the government; and they kick and scream about it. This has the effect of dilluting suggestions by experts. I can tell you now, as can every economics nerd, that a more academically-based economic policy as opposed to public-based economic policy would deliver long term results. The fact that economic analysis is so diluted in public debate has a multiplier effect on this; and make economists cry all the harder.

Let me give you an example, in pure economic terms, of the 24-hour opening of the library. Let's assume that opening the library 24-hours is a good thing, that there is no awful administrative mountain to overcome first, and that there is no threat of the precedent of price extending to, say, complete library access.

To fund the access, it can be done by private funding (charging €2 to access the library after 10pm) or publically, increasing the income upper-level tax rate by 1% to 43%. (Note this is analgous to any public v private debate; and I know that it wouldn't take a 1% increase in income tax to fund a library - it's theoretical).

The main positive effecta of funding the opening privately are:
i) The library opens
ii) The system won't be abused. I regularly take extra-curricular (read JS and SS) books out of the library and never read them. This is wasteful, it stops the book being available to JS and SS students. I would not do this if there was a €1 charge, I would only take books out that I needed. The same applies to desk space in the library. Although supply would far exceed demand in a 24 hour library (well in our big libraries anyway), the principle applies to something slightly more tangible like road-space or water.

The negative effect of private funding is:
i) It costs the individual, and would exclude some people from its use.
[Note: they would not be able to attend the 24 hour library anyway and grant systems/social welfare can eliminate this problem (but our wonderful government aren't exactly effective with social welfare)].

-

The positive effect of public funding would be:
i) The library is open to all

The negative effects:
i) Tax rates increase -> people willing to work less -> (at certain levels) tax take lowers; or at least people have less money to spend in general
ii) It is open to abuse (see above)
iii) The increased government spending leads to an overall increase in the price level of the economy
iv) Government tend to be inefficient at administration
v) Increased government spending induces a greater trade deficit
vi) Increased government spending can lead to higher unemployment in more situations than it leads to lower unemployment
vii) It is reliant upon the state of the economy, if there's an exogenous (or, indeed, endogenous) shock it's bye bye library; this is less prevalent when privately funded
iix) Un-independent; the library exists at the whim of the current government.

When I was in Leaving Cert my World View (God, that's really a buzzword of late ain't it?) was very well represented by Andrew_83's post in another thread. Since studying economics on a more broad scale (incidentally it's effectively studying general equilibrium rather than partial equilibrium - but only my homies will get the lingo) I appreciate the right-wing thinking of a small state being bigger than a big state. With the four years of trying to apply economic theory (well substantiated, before somebody says it's all rhetoric) to the Irish political scene, I, like most economics nerds, start crying at some commonly held views and policy. Like SSIA's. Why God, why? Bloody tax on poverty. And yes, on public spending and public return. I've become convinced that many standard economists' dogma is dead right but that the public view holds precedence in democracy.

....

Time Magazine

...

Bloody character limit.


So what am I trying to say? I suppose it's something along the lines of "trust us". Freedom Instituters call me "Comrade"; the PD's say I'm "definitely in the socialist wing of FG"; [strike]Europerson calls me "mother";[/strike] and yet I'm certainly to the right of most people in terms of how equity should be achieved in an economy - as are most economists. Maybe we're just frustrated that we don't get to play a bigger role in such an important field .