> But that is exact economists have to do: predict what humans will do
Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen.
That works in reverse as well, attempting to predict why humans did what they did in the past and then attempt to attribute those predictions as an explanation of quantified economic indicators.
In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific?
> Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen.
Economists study the economy which is made of… a bunch of humans doing stuff with money.
> In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific?
What is this not testable about:
> The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation […]
Was there (USD) currency debasement? Was there US inflation? No? The predictions were wrong. The same day it was published (in the WSJ) there were critiques about it, e.g.:
When QE2 went forward and was about to stop there were many predictions (generally involving piles of money), some of which were accurate and others less so:
Do you have a model that tries to explain what tariffs with do to the USD? You can make a prediction and win/lose a lot of money buy shorting/longing the dollar.
That's simple, QE wasn't tested in any scientifically valid study. They made predictions of what QE may do, they enacted QE policies in an uncontrolled economy with no control group, and stuff happened. Afterwards they attempted to read the tea leaves and claim what precisely causes economic changes.
That isn't scientific at all. That also doesn't mean they were wrong, you can absolutely be right when you go off educated guesses or plain old intuition. My claim is that how economics is studied is not scientific in that it never has, and never can, follow the scientific method.
Economists have agency. They don't have to predict what humans will do. They believe they can predict it, attempt to make their predictions, then claim that's what will happen.
That works in reverse as well, attempting to predict why humans did what they did in the past and then attempt to attribute those predictions as an explanation of quantified economic indicators.
In both case, past behavior and future behavior, their predictions are untestable. How is that scientific?