|
Post by Vene on Mar 24, 2009 17:59:42 GMT -5
It's apparently amazingly simple, fire all the people on Wall Street. You know, the people who made poor decisions and lost so much money. Replace them with physicists and let them figure out a solution. From Uncertain Principles.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 24, 2009 18:19:53 GMT -5
I'd say physicists would have a better time predicting the stock flow as well, in part by paying attention to indirect influences. And they'd likely balk at some of the crazy ideas, because the odds are just too crazy to seriously consider.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Mar 24, 2009 18:30:27 GMT -5
I don't think that's such a good idea. I mean people's emotions (and by extension irrationality) play a significant role in economics. I somehow don't think it's really something physicists woud excell at.
Besides, I them to figure out how quantum mechanics works rather than trying to clean up someone else's mess.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 24, 2009 18:31:58 GMT -5
Besides, I them to figure out how quantum mechanics works rather than trying to clean up someone else's mess. Okay, that is a pretty valid point, but I'll also point out it's hard to properly fund such research when the country is so deep into a recession.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 24, 2009 18:34:18 GMT -5
Besides, I them to figure out how quantum mechanics works rather than trying to clean up someone else's mess. Okay, that is a pretty valid point, but I'll also point out it's hard to properly fund such research when the country is so deep into a recession. Given that nearly all theoretical level science is funded by the government, and given that public sector spending should be greater during a recession than a boom, science departments are likely to have more money during a recession than out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 24, 2009 18:35:57 GMT -5
Besides, I them to figure out how quantum mechanics works rather than trying to clean up someone else's mess. Got that covered.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Mar 24, 2009 18:46:46 GMT -5
Given that nearly all theoretical level science is funded by the government, and given that public sector spending should be greater during a recession than a boom, science departments are likely to have more money during a recession than out of it. Only if extra funding can be put to such use instead of being taken away from it as a "useless endeavour," like has been done to NASA. Vene: Guess I should have actually visited the link.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 24, 2009 19:19:26 GMT -5
There is actually a science for the study of the economy. Strangely enough, it's called economics. It has all these great little schools of economic thought, like the American school, and the Chicago school and the Austrian school. The scientists of economics are called economists.
Stating that another buch of scientists, completely unversed in the theory, let alone practice of this science, if a bunch of proponents of one school of economics fail miserably, is like saying you could should get an electrician in to do your plumbing if the plumber you just fired wasn't very good. Physicists wouldn't know what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 24, 2009 19:22:19 GMT -5
Fred, click the link please. Alternatively, learn to spot satire.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 24, 2009 19:22:53 GMT -5
Fred, click the link please. Alternatively, learn to spot satire. Yeah, I know. I was just being a party pooper.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 24, 2009 19:25:42 GMT -5
Yeah, except theoretical physics is so much more interesting than the economy, I think.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Mar 24, 2009 19:53:42 GMT -5
I don't think that's such a good idea. I mean people's emotions (and by extension irrationality) play a significant role in economics. I somehow don't think it's really something physicists would excel at. ...and you think economists do? Because really, the dotcom boom wasn't prevented by smart economic theory.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 24, 2009 20:28:51 GMT -5
I don't think that's such a good idea. I mean people's emotions (and by extension irrationality) play a significant role in economics. I somehow don't think it's really something physicists would excel at. ...and you think economists do? Because really, the dotcom boom wasn't prevented by smart economic theory. Some economists do.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Mar 24, 2009 21:55:09 GMT -5
I don't think that's such a good idea. I mean people's emotions (and by extension irrationality) play a significant role in economics. I somehow don't think it's really something physicists would excel at. ...and you think economists do? Because really, the dotcom boom wasn't prevented by smart economic theory. Last I checked, economists had no control over speculators and the bubble they constantly create. I wonder what the physicist's solution to this problem would be?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 24, 2009 21:58:04 GMT -5
Last I checked, economists had no control over speculators and the bubble they constantly create. I wonder what the physicist's solution to this problem would be? I don't know what a physicists answer would be, but a biochemist's answer would be to use a metabolic inhibitor, such as cyanide.
|
|