Economics without normative conclusions is just statistics.
No it isn’t. It is just economics that is less irritating. Economics can conclude “If you want X then you should do Y”. This is obviously most useful for people who have consequentialist ethics and happen to desire Y but these preferences are best considered to be attributes (probably) held by the economists and not by economics itself.
A trap I have noticed some economists falling into is reasoning “Z is something that probably will happen therefore Z is something that should happen”. This tends to invoke my contempt, particularly since it is seldom applied consistently.
Economics can conclude “If you want X then you should do Y”.
This is what economists are trying to do now. Yet, implicit in their advice are normative economic principals that comprise the set list of X: Full employment, lower inflation, lower taxes, higher revenue etc...Obviously whoever wants x is normatively seeking a solution. As a result the analysis must then also and it is implicit in the formulation.
The economists themselves may have no feelings one way or another but they are using the economic and statistical principals toward normative ends, even if they are not their own. This is why I found the economic discipline so frustrating. Everyone want’s to be a human calculator, forgetting that they are being used to solve someone else’s philosophical dilemma.
Z is something that probably will happen therefore Z is something that should happen. This tends to invoke my contempt, particularly since it is seldom applied consistently.
As well it should. What you described is still normative, only it applies a naturalistic fallacy spin on the normative conclusion.
This is what economists are trying to do now. Yet, implicit in their advice are normative economic principals that comprise the set list of X: Full employment, lower inflation, lower taxes, higher revenue etc...Obviously whoever wants x is normatively seeking a solution. As a result the analysis must then also and it is implicit in the formulation.
I can mostly agree with you. How one chooses to a discipline is inevitably normative. This leaves only a slight difference in how we describe the process, which side of definition we put the ‘normative’ on.
The economists themselves may have no feelings one way or another but they are using the economic and statistical principals toward normative ends, even if they are not their own. This is why I found the economic discipline so frustrating. Everyone want’s to be a human calculator, forgetting that they are being used to solve someone else’s philosophical dilemma.
I share that frustration. Economists in particularly should be expected to be able to trace how the motives play out through a system. That more or less is microeconomics.
No it isn’t. It is just economics that is less irritating. Economics can conclude “If you want X then you should do Y”. This is obviously most useful for people who have consequentialist ethics and happen to desire Y but these preferences are best considered to be attributes (probably) held by the economists and not by economics itself.
A trap I have noticed some economists falling into is reasoning “Z is something that probably will happen therefore Z is something that should happen”. This tends to invoke my contempt, particularly since it is seldom applied consistently.
This is what economists are trying to do now. Yet, implicit in their advice are normative economic principals that comprise the set list of X: Full employment, lower inflation, lower taxes, higher revenue etc...Obviously whoever wants x is normatively seeking a solution. As a result the analysis must then also and it is implicit in the formulation.
The economists themselves may have no feelings one way or another but they are using the economic and statistical principals toward normative ends, even if they are not their own. This is why I found the economic discipline so frustrating. Everyone want’s to be a human calculator, forgetting that they are being used to solve someone else’s philosophical dilemma.
As well it should. What you described is still normative, only it applies a naturalistic fallacy spin on the normative conclusion.
I can mostly agree with you. How one chooses to a discipline is inevitably normative. This leaves only a slight difference in how we describe the process, which side of definition we put the ‘normative’ on.
I share that frustration. Economists in particularly should be expected to be able to trace how the motives play out through a system. That more or less is microeconomics.