Would industrializing Africa be beneficial to global economy?

[too-open-minded]

I think Economics is a science.

 

That being said, my question is do you think that if The U.S or NATO industrialized Africa as a partner in trade. One that can produce, sell, and buy goods. Would that stimulate a sufficient amount of economic growth in the global economy to be a significantly large change?

[John Cuthber]

"I think Economics is a science."

Well, it isn't my field, but I don't.

Perhaps you could explain the mathematical laws that allow economists to make predictions an give some examples of how that predictive ability has been used to avoid stock market crashes and slumps in the economy.

 

Or, if you prefer,

as Truman said

"Give me a one-handed economist! All my economics say, ''On the one hand? on the other.''

 

or

http://cheezburger.com/2814131200

 

 

To be fair, you have posed an interesting and important question.

I doubt that anyone could actually answer it .

I also doubt that there would be any difficulty finding economists who would say "yes", and other economists who would say "no" and both groups would be sure they were right.

 

If you ask two scientists what colour hydrated copper (II) sulphate is they will both tell you it's blue.

Why do we not find that level of agreement among economists, if economics is also a science?

[iNow]

Do you think that if The U.S or NATO industrialized Africa as a partner in trade. One that can produce, sell, and buy goods. Would that stimulate a sufficient amount of economic growth in the global economy to be a significantly large change?

Yes, and it's already happening.

 

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/CAR042414A.htm

 

 

 

"I think Economics is a science."

Well, it isn't my field, but I don't.

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. I find it to be very scientific as an area of study overall, even if the individual economists themselves don't always act like very good empiricists. Most economics is based on data and modeling and testing and peer-reviewed publication, and all of that is very scientific, IMO. What happens, though, is too often folks like you and me and laypeople in general are only exposed to the political hacks who speak using the language of economics, but who are instead merely propagandists blinded by preconceptions and firm adherence to a specific ideology.

 

Another challenge is that the models are hugely complex and they attempt to represent massively dynamic sets of variables, variables that include large collections of humans who are themselves massively complex and difficult to model... but those models do look at specific outcomes based on specific inputs and get adjusted accordingly when experiment shows them to be flawed or lacking... That's how the good ones and the good economists that I read do it, anyway... Unfortunately, as noted above too many give the entire field a bad name by being too emotionally wedded to their preferred view and resistant to facts that show their claims to be false (can you say, "trickle down economics" or "rising the minimum wage kills jobs?" the science shows rather clearly both those claims are fallacious, but it's not economics that's failing, it's ideological economists choosing to ignore that data).

 

If I were to guess, I bet your feelings here are not limited to economics, either... and I'd wager that you have similar feelings about psychology and other social sciences (I've found that chemists tend to be purists on this subject... And, well... purity is important in other important ways for them, too... so it completely makes sense! ).

 

Here's one take I read just a few days ago. It's in response to a screed that economics isn't a science. I only quoted some of it here.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2014/09/28/economics-science/

 

Overall, I disagree with the notion that a science needs to be stricly randomized controlled trials. But more importantly, for people who understand empirical methodology, the question is this science? is basically useless. Instead we ask detailed questions about causality, robustness, bias, heterogeneity, external validity, etc. In doing so we learn a lot about how much weight we should put on various studies and estimates. And by the way, a lot of the math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals that Gobry finds so cargo-cultish is quite useful here.

 

Instead, whether something is science is most useful to convey to the layperson how much weight they should put on various research. And to this end I think Gobry is completely wrong that randomized trials good, non-randomized trials bad is a useful heuristic. After all, there are plenty of randomized trials done with 12 people in laboratory conditions that have little to do with reality that should receive little weight in our beliefs. And there are large scale, well-done econometric studies that should be given a fair amount of weight in our beliefs. Whether something is a randomized trial or not is but one dimension among many in determining how we should think about it. If you need to boil what is scientific down to a single heuristic, a better criteria than randomized trials or not is whether it is falsifiable. You can falsify a lot without randomized trials. The long-run Phillips curve, the idea that productivity shocks can fully explain the business cycle, the claim that the gold standard will lead to economic growth, and a litany of other zany ideas have been thoroughly debunked by economists using tools that Gobry finds unscientific. While there may not be as many economic claims that we know are true, there are certainly a good amount that we know are false.

 

Trying to paint economics as unscientific may be useful for those who wish to fill the vacuum that such excess skepticism would create with their own baseless, data free stories about the economy. But it is not useful for people wishing to understand the world.

Edited September 30, 2014 by iNow

[too-open-minded]

Economics is relatively difficult to apply to the scientific method. However I still think it can be considered a science or atleast be broken down to one.

 

You got your question, research, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and conclusion. If multiple experiments are ran under different circumstances and the same results are yielding through a crucible of researchers, then it is widely accepted in the scientific community.

 

Economics is also the observation and gathering of data to explain phenomena.

 

What economists do - http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/economists.htm#tab-2

[iNow]

Except, controlled experiments in economics are fraught with ethical limitations since you'd never get through IRB review on most, and most data gathering must consequently be executed via natural experiments in the real world... Natural experiments like the recent Great Recession which come with countless confounding variables and important extraneous influences.

[John Cuthber]

Most economic "theories" I have come across assume rational people and perfect knowledge.That's simply not a scientific model.

[iNow]

Just recall that your personal incredulity about the other theories and models which are out there doesn't render the entire field unscientific.

[Essay]

Economy is like climate; it's a compilation of many factors, and subject to (or it changes due to) evolving forcers, so it's an emergent phenomenon that can be understood scientifically ...though not predictably, unless one has all complete and relevant information.

 

Economics is a management philosophy (or strategy); so to the extent it is based on complete and accurate science/information, it will be more effective.

 

~ istm

[too-open-minded]

Economics doesn't fit the parameters of the scientific method well. We can apply the scientific method to economics however, theirs so many variables. It's hard to control, test, and even predict outcomes for.

 

However I think we can observe it enough to the point that some science can be applied to economics. Establishing constants and theories for economics, a system that grows and evolves. That doesn't seem entirely possible. However understanding it to some degree is.

 

Is science so much a concept as it is an applied method of understanding?

Edited September 30, 2014 by too-open-minded

[Essay]

F'n GD Tablet touchscreen!!!

Please erase that -1 rep point! I was trying to quote, but screen shifted.

 

F'n tablet!

 

.

.

.

.

Economics doesn't fit the parameters of the scientific method well. We can apply the scientific method to economics however, theirs so many variables. It's hard to control, test, and even predict outcomes for.

 

However I think we can observe it enough to the point that some science can be applied to economics. Establishing constants and theories for economics, a system that grows and evolves. That doesn't seem entirely possible. However understanding it to some degree is.

 

Is science so much a concept as it is an applied method of understanding?

 

So yes, that sounds like what I was trying to say.

 

The concept (that science is) is accurate understanding, achieved via the method (scientific method).

 

~

Edited September 30, 2014 by Essay

[too-open-minded]

Lol, it's all good man. I don't care about my rep points XD.

[Essay]

Lol, it's all good man. I don't care about my rep points XD.

 

...yes, but it ain't right....

 

But aside from my additional comment above...

 

Shouldn't the question be about if industrialization of Africa would be good for Africa?

 

~

[too-open-minded]

Ofcourse it would be good for Africa however if we get involved, it's still important to know and inform people that there's something in it for us as well right?

[Essay]

I'd suggest you're assuming too much, and presuming enough to be bordering on 'cultural' insensitivity.

 

"Of course...?" Really?

What products would industrialization make; more arms?

 

Besides, China is already 'helping' Africa by contracting for huge tracts of land to guarantee their own people won't be in danger of any destabilizing famines. Keeping people "fat, dumb, and happy" is an old and workable political strategy.

 

...nothing ironic here....

 

~

[Ophiolite]

I am surprised no one has commented on the bizarre suggestion that NATO should industrialise Africa. You want a military alliance to industrialise the continent?

 

Essay - I've corrected your accidental neg. rep.

[Essay]

I am surprised no one has commented on the bizarre suggestion that NATO should industrialise Africa. You want a military alliance to industrialise the continent?

 

Essay - I've corrected your accidental neg. rep.

...thanks mucho!

 

I'd not heard about that NATO idea, but it might work about as well as our efforts to similarly transition Haiti back in the 1990s. I think I can find a link to Clinton's apology to Congress for that early attempt at 'globalization' ...not that globalization isn't important.

 

So, is there yet a 'global' economic theory that might work better than the Haiti model?

 

~?

Edited September 30, 2014 by Essay

[Tzurain]

Yes, it would be beneficial to the economic growth of the world. But think about this..

The forests of deep Africa harbor more than a million species of flora and fauna, will the destruction of these thing be worth the trade?
What do we do with the community that are already happy with their lifestyle? What if people don't want to give their land?
During 2008, Dubai had a financial crisis for being low on oil, what if Africa run out of resources?

[Roamer]

to be a significantly large change?

 

A significantly large change to what ?

 

The global economy would off course be bigger, as that's the sum of the "local" economies.

Whether on one hand the Africans would be helped, or on the other hand the US or NATO(why a military organization and a country dominated by it's military-industrial complex, btw ? why not EU for example? ) would gain something is more complicated, it'd depend on the goals of this industrialization in itself(which would depend on the goals of the investors and their partners)

 

Maybe it helps to look at what happened to Africa and the third world thus far.

In the colonial era Africa was dominated by Europe, i think most of us will agree that the European investments into Africa were generally not helping Africa but rather just exploiting it.(and hence, global industrialization happened mostly in Europe) Africa's total economy definately increased due to this though, but in the end they lost the ability to control their basic tendencies and the population booms, making them need more economy that they hardly have.

And, every now and then, "abuse" is a small topic, companies putting their factories in the third world and paying their employees there next-to-nothing.(which generally gets "solved" but i strongly doubt it doesn't keep on happening)

And right now China is heavily investing in Africa, including in their infrastructure, if anything, i expect a better long-term return for the Africans compared to the exploitations that happened thus far, and the investors, well, usually the investors know to invest in something that gives some kind of return.

 

PS:Are people in this thread saying that economy doesn't become a science until we get smart enough to understand it ?

[Tzurain]

Think about the global warming~
The pollution~

Our current technology aren't capable of maintaining or withstanding the 'bad' effects of industrializing Africa.

Stick to Agriculture, in my opinion.

Industrializing Africa may do more harm than good.

[Phi for All]

Think about the global warming~

The pollution~

 

Our current technology aren't capable of maintaining or withstanding the 'bad' effects of industrializing Africa.

 

Stick to Agriculture, in my opinion.

 

Industrializing Africa may do more harm than good.

 

Last week, the White House announced they were releasing hi-res elevation datasets of Africa, in order to help local populations better prepare for climate change. Secure World Foundation, based near me, along with NASA, NOAA, USGS, and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, is providing training and workshops for examining this data.

 

I think the best thing for Africa right now is knowledge. I'd like to see more schools built, with a modern curriculum free of religious or cultural bias.

[Tzurain]

 

I think the best thing for Africa right now is knowledge.

Hoorah for Education.

[John Cuthber]

Just recall that your personal incredulity about the other theories and models which are out there doesn't render the entire field unscientific.

That rather depends on circumstances.

For example, I might be able to cite evidence that

economic models are often based on the assumptions of rationality with perfect knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model#Pitfalls

and that

people are not, in fact, rational.

see, among other works,

Irrationality: The enemy within, a lay reader's guide to the psychology of cognitive biases and common failures of human judgement. by Stuart Sutherland.

 

In that case, it's not my incredulity that matters, it's the evidence.

 

And the evidence shows that, at best, rather a lot of economics is unscientific.

[iNow]

That rather depends on circumstances.

For example, I might be able to cite evidence that

economic models are often based on the assumptions of rationality with perfect knowledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model#Pitfalls

and that

people are not, in fact, rational.

see, among other works,

Irrationality: The enemy within, a lay reader's guide to the psychology of cognitive biases and common failures of human judgement. by Stuart Sutherland.

 

In that case, it's not my incredulity that matters, it's the evidence.

What that evidence shows is that those particular models have flaws, though, not that the discipline of economics is unscientific.

 

 

And the evidence shows that, at best, rather a lot of economics is unscientific.

Fair enough. I prefer to say that many economists tend to prioritize their political ideology over the benefits of the scientific method or the importance of adjusting ones worldview based on facts and feedback from the real-world, but I strongly suspect we're not too terribly far apart on this issue given this clarification of your position you just offered. Edited October 1, 2014 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

To get back to the topic...

Nobody actually knows the answer.

Plenty of people will say they do.

That blind belief, in the absence of sound evidence, is more akin to religion or politics, than to science.

[MigL]

Easy enough to say " keep Africa agricultural ", while we enjoy the benefits of an industrial/information society. These benefits include, among others, the ability to feed our people to obesity levels., while Africans have to rely on our aid or starve.

Who are we to deny them the choice of industrialization ?

 

As for 'is economics a science ?'. Every valid science experiment has to be reproducible, The laws of science don't change depending on the day of the week, the location, emotions or seemingly random luck. Economics doesn't seem to currently pass this test. Economics is based on people and non-quantifiable emotions ( confidence in a certain stock ? ), but maybe, with further development oof chaos theory, we may eventually have a somewhat workable, scientific model.