[roenxi]

It is possible to be too critical about a magazine article, but it can't be stated enough that the evidence that economists are abusing maths is weak.

Most of the evidence points to the economists abusing assumptions, which is hardly a mathematics problem. Most assumptions can lead to elegant math. The biggest problem in modern economics as practiced is the tacit assumption that because practically all people would like to be able to consume more the system should favour consumers over savers. Which is a logical non-sequitur, so that can't be pinned on mathematics.

They may as well call the modern approach to interest rates the "Global War on Savers". Anyone attempting to save without moving into stocks & other assets will be wiped out long term.

The risk from using maths is irrelevant compared to the damage done by assuming a bad value structure - and there are so many forces influencing the value structure (particularly political ones) that I don't see how mathematical beauty could be a problem for economics as a discipline.

[mikorym]

Exactly. Mathematics is the study of which statements follow from which assumptions.

I have difficulty what the term "economics" means, but usually my best intuition is to regard it as modelling of economic phenomena rather than engineering economy from theory.

[neokantian]

> Most of the evidence points to the economists abusing assumptions, which is hardly a mathematics problem.

Agreed. Economics is about the real world. Therefore, it has to be empirical. That means that axiomatically deriving conclusions from assumptions is not legitimate in economics. Still, in the context of empirical knowledge, we have only two usable methods: the scientific or the historical one. Economics cannot be validated by testing experimentally. Hence, economics cannot possibly rest on a sound method. Therefore, economics is fundamentally not a legitimate academic discipline.

[Nasrudith]

There is a difference between non-repeatable in same state and non-scientific. Applying absolute standards of rigor is ironically also unscientific.

We know that hyperinflation is a way to screw over an economy utterly. It can and will fail and in the best case be the equivalent of dissolving the currency and going bankrupt.

The most benign form of it that may not techically count would involve massive growth as well and the devaluation wouldn't be a pathology but a reflection that yes, a well honed spear, flint knives, a badket, and a few carved bone pieces of jewelry may have been respectable wealth for nomadic hunter-gathers but aren't really worth anything compared to even the contents of a jalopy in the great depression.

Just a steel knife or pot would be grand artifacts because they are better in performance than anything else they could find.

That their old currency isn't worth anything is reflective of the fact that past production has been rendered obsolete and the old goods are worth little.

[neokantian]

> There is a difference between non-repeatable in same state and non-scientific.

No, there isn't.

> Applying absolute standards of rigor is ironically also unscientific.

The rules governing science are not determined by science itself. Science experimentally tests propositions about facts. Rules about science are propositions about other propositions. Hence, science has absolutely nothing to say about its own rules. Therefore, propositions about the scientific method are necessarily unscientific.