On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:41:23 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 09:09:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
Complexity is a reason that pure theorizing is going to decline in
importance. The theories get tangled up as more of them become
involved in the equations. It's like differential equations in
engineering, and real-world engineering has gravitated toward
numerical analysis, such as FEA. Economics is going the same way.
/snip

Indeed, and this may well be a reason to adopt a far more
pragmatic approach such as EvOp and Action Research
methodology
http://tinyurl.com/nffwfkz
http://tinyurl.com/2rarbb
rather than trying to predict the future, which Mandlebrot
has demonstrated may well be impossible in other than the
most general terms, one the order of "if its wintertime the
temperature will be below average."
http://tinyurl.com/pz5rmxp

One of the major problems is the failure of the policy
makers to formulate their goals and objectives in
quantifiable, measurable and objective terms, and then to
collect data to evaluate the effects of their policy on the
areas of interest. [if the data is not available or can't be
collected, its not quantifiable, measurable or objective].
It appears the unintended consequences and "side effects" of
a policy frequently have more impact on the socioeconomy
than to the objectives.

They usually do better than doing nothing.


Behavioral economics and non-rational economic decisions
should have driven a stake through the heart of Fama's
"efficient marketplace hypothesis" but so far it hasn't.

Behavioral economics is in its infancy.

While labor/time intensive, Stephenson's Q methodology
http://tinyurl.com/nvdxfo would seem to offer far better
insight into the market, e. g. The Alibaba IPO
http://tinyurl.com/myf2vor.


One of the major problems is getting agreement on exactly
what the [non contradictory] objective are. Is it good or
bad when the median wage increases?
Is it good or bad when
corporations pay less in taxes? Is it good or bad when
unemployment or high?

Like Schrodinger's cat, they're both.

Much depends on which perspective or
valiance you are responding from, i.e. individual (employee
or CEO), business, industrial sector, aggrigiate/national,
sovereign supranational corporation, etc.

Those are all questions that economomists are asked to answer. But the
policy goals are not economics. They're politics.

--
Ed Huntress