The Study of Bullshit

No offence to David Hume, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, Adam Smith (wait, are they all British?) and a great multitude of scholars who belong to the "grand" and erudite school of economics, but reading the first few pages of an economics textbook invites a yawn.

One line in the textbook goes like this: "...economics studies how men act." To a large extent, the statement holds since economics, as a social science, seeks to comprehend the workings of the human economy (as if there is such thing as cow economy or pig economy) and to discern tell-tale trends that are purported to be able to predict the economic progress in the future. In doing so, the study of economics has brought about the construction of various elaborate theories and principles which then serves as a foundation for more economic hypothesis to be formulated. The so called "oracle-power" of economics is claimed to play a fundamental role in business enterprises and MNC since the former is able to chart the direction taken by the latter in the highly competitive economy of today.

My question is, why are there more engineers being employed to run economics-related tasks in these business corporations than economists? Aren't economists, with their "comprehensive" knowledge on the nature of the economy, supposed to be better at jobs like these?

An article in the NUS Engineering Bulletin (what-ever they call it la) states that engineers find themselves in high demand by these corporations due to the practical training and skills that are acquired via engineering courses. So, what do economists study back in their university years? Almost immeasurable truckloads of theories sparingly dusted with a miserly speck of practical work?

Such is the reason why economics works better than sleeping pills. Too many words and too few actions. I personally think that economics is a forced marriage between the science and the arts. The book which i am currently reading claims that the study of economics can be regarded as a science yet its theories cannot be experimented with. What strikes me as odd is the irony of the previous statement. The knowledge of science is a result of experimentation as a hypothesis is tested in an empirical setting to observe whether the result agrees with the hypothesis and thus to prove the validity of hypothesis (how many times have i repeated "hypothesis"?)That economics cannot be tested in the same manner while claiming to be a science is akin to saying that cows can fly since its theories cannot be verified empirically anyway(so they are bullshit, right?).

I guess economists have plenty of time to spare so they end up concocting a wonderful fiasco to "explain" a tiny economic phenomenon, then shove it away in favour of a new one when it no longer fits in the real world, very much like filming a blockbuster movie (people's taste changes so the movie has to change as well). As such, i suggest that economics should be called a "popular pseudo-science" that is always pretending to be able to shed light on the human activities and thus gains the "blind acceptance" of the mass.

Maybe, the excessive crapping advocated by economics is why business corporations prefer engineers to economists for doing the economist's job. Too much time is spent formulating some abstruse explanation or prediction while too little focus is given to the real matter at hand, which are the figures and numbers depicting the company's progress at hand.

A cousin of mine told me that engineers are favoured because they can count. Yup, they can count (not the kind of 1+2=3, duh!). These corporations require individuals who are realistic and practical in training such that they produce discernible results and cut short on the long drudgery of philosphising in the air. Obviously, calculating numbers and figures yields results that are quantitative, measurable and definitely realistic compared to the highly qualitative, subjective and sometimes abstract theories of economics.

I must respect the economist's method of telling both sides of the story when he is asked on an economics question like, "Should I invest money in company A?" He goes the full length of unveiling every good and bad in accordance to the principle of the double-edged sword. However, instead of answering the question directly, the excessive preoccupation in analysis and balancing can befuddle the questioner's mind as it introduces too much information at one time. At certain times, the explanation is overly complex and uses words of uncertainty like "may, could, should, maybe" that can get on the questioner's nerves. A simple realistic answer, supported by empirical data, would serve better to address the question.

Phew, too tired to crap already. Actually, i shouldn't lambast the subject of economics too fiercely. Planning to take engineering+econs double degree (if NUS offers me, of course) so economics should be good, right? Mr Soh, please don't kill me.