Imagine
a world without proper theories that economists have developed over hundreds of
years. Can you see it? Picture a place
like Zimbabwe, which has such economic potential, but has fallen to the point
of requiring its citizens to pay 1.6 trillion Zimbabwean dollars for a loaf of
bread (Fisher 2010) . If that doesn’t
show a government that does not know how to apply the science of economics, I don’t
know what would. Although economics is considered a social or dismal science, it
is a science comparable to chemistry and should be considered a subject of general
education, because economic theories are practical applications of everyday
life.
Sometimes
people see the physical sciences as more reliable, or that they state the facts
and are not wishy washy. There seems to be this disposition that nothing in the
physical sciences change. As an example of the contrary, over the last few
centuries many new theories have developed about the atomic model.
 |
| Source: Advameg, Inc. 2015. Atomic theory. Accessed December 2015. http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atomic-Theory.html. |
First it was
Dalton’s model, second was Thompson’s plum pudding model, then Rutherford’s,
followed by Bohr’s planetary model, all the way until our current understanding
of the atom, which is the quantum theory (Advameg, Inc. 2015) . Does that seem like
a hard and factual science? There are so many theories and assumptions that have to be made
for chemistry to work, why would it not be the same for economics.
Through the Ages
Economics
is a different way of viewing the world, and thus certain assumptions have to
be made, just as chemist would make certain assumptions in order to view the
world in an atomic way. The principles relating to economics were used even in
the days of Socrates, but it wasn't really formed into a field of study
until the 16th - 18th centuries when the formation of an economic theory called mercantilism was
developed (The Centrist Party 2014) . This theory in
simplistic terms means that any nation is only as prosperous as the amount of
money they have (The Centrist Party 2014) .
It
wasn't until the development of classical economics in 1776, and with the
publication of Adam Smith's article called The Wealth of Nations that
economics truly began to be viewed as a field of study (Centrist Party, 2014).
With the start of this study of viewing the world in terms of economics there
were many more theories that began to merge, theories such as the laissez-faire.
Laissez-faire was developed in the 19th century, bringing about a free
market, which increased the restrictions that governments have on a free market
(Centrist Party, 2014).
This was a contradicting theory to mercantilism which gave more power to the
government, and thus we see the separation of opinions especially concerning
economic theory.
This
division of opinion in economic theory is what I assume the reason many people
consider economics a soft science because it does not have specific unchanging
values. The thing to consider is that even though two different theories may
seem to contradict, it doesn’t invalidate each individual theory. In the markets or societies that
laissez-faire has been implemented, it has proven to be quite effective, and
efficient. On the other hand certain governments, such as China, who have more
of a government ruled society have also proven to be successful. There is
obviously a question of how ethical each theory is, and personal opinion is
important in deciding which way is the “right way.” That is the beauty of
economics, it can mold to fit the need of each individual.
The View of Our World
Of
course the study of economics is not the same as a study of chemistry, but the
value each subject presents the world is equally useful. When a chemist decides
to present his or her work, they do it with models and formulas. These things
are very specific and cannot allow much variation, but the point of it is to
help us understand the world we live in. The following definition
illustrates this point:
Chemistry
is the study of matter and the chemical reactions between substances. Chemistry
is also the study of matter's composition, structure, and properties. Matter is
essentially anything in the world that takes up space and has mass (Boundless
2015) .
I would like to reemphasize that
chemistry studies matter, and everything in the world is made up of matter.
Thus, chemistry is the study of understanding the world. In contrast, or rather
in agreeance to that definition let’s look at the definition of economics,
presented by the American Economic Association[IF1] :
Economics
is the study of how people choose to use resources. Resources include the time
and talent people have available, the land, buildings, equipment, and other
tools on hand, and the knowledge of how to combine them to create useful
products and services (American 2015).
Similar to chemistry, economics
studies the behavior of humans, and the way they interact with the things
around them. The world is filled with humans, and so economics, like chemistry,
is the study of understanding the world. Just because we view it from a
different angle, doesn’t make it any less accurate or useful.
Just
as was mentioned before, chemists present their work through models and
formulas. That is exactly what economists strive to do. Unlike chemists though,
economists have a harder time expressing their work in formulas and models that
are so concrete and specific. Certain assumptions must be made, and thus
hypotheticals are created, which are oftentimes discredited. What I am
proposing that maybe it’s not the study of economics that is soft or
unspecific, but rather the inability of economists to communicate their work.
If an economist doesn't know how to communicate his knowledge to others, it
will make no difference what kind of research he has done, because he can't
communicate to others.
Through the Eyes of an Economist
What
I want to impress on your mind is that we should not discredit or give less
value to economics simply because economists fail to present their findings in
a concrete way without assumptions. That is what makes economics what it is.
Why shouldn’t it be a required course in high school and college? Chemistry is
a required college and high school course, along with many other physical
sciences. Many people end up not ever applying the principles studied in their
physical science related classes, even though they are important. What I am
saying though is that everyone will have the opportunity to apply the
principles of economics in their own personal lives if not in their careers. The
benefit would be that every person would be able to view and understand the
world in a way that would strengthen the state each individual lives in.
I
propose that we increase students’ exposure to economics by incorporating core
high school and college level classes into curriculum. The more we can
incorporate viewing the world in the way economists do, the more likely it is
for economists to improve their ability to present their findings. Let’s set
aside this fictitious notion that economics is the dismal science with no hope
for the future. I invite anyone that has read my words to evaluate the way you
view the study of economics and find the desire within yourself to learn more
about how you can see through the eyes of an economist.
References
Advameg, Inc. 2015. Atomic theory. Accessed
December 2015. http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/Atomic-Theory.html.
American Economic Association. 2015. What is
Economics? Accessed December 2015.
https://www.aeaweb.org/students/WhatIsEconomics.php.
Boundless. 2015. The Study of Chemistry.
October. Accessed December 2015.
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/introduction-to-chemistry-1/overview-of-chemistry-26/the-study-of-chemistry-176-7533/.
Fisher, Daniel. 2010. In Pictures: The 10 Worst
Economies. Forbes Magazine.
The Centrist Party. 2014. History of Economics.
Accessed November 2015.
http://uscentrist.org/platform/docs/history-of-economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment