Why economists contend with each other?

Before starting with the subject, let us examine one aspect of the issue, which is less favorable. Of a question why economists contend with each other? You probably already know that the professional economists spend a lot of time to argue with each other. You've probably heard the old expression that says that if all economists converge world, they would not reach a conclusion together.

You may be wondering why if the science of economics a science, it can happen. You may ask whether economics is actually any good if the science is so little seems to only result in finding a good one.

There are several reasons that lead economists to argue with each other. Its source is the nature of economics itself. Economics is the social sciences rather than the physical sciences. Economists have to face the object is not dead. People do not always match the physical laws. Their behavior can become irrational and unpredictable. They even do not always act according to their material interests, so contrary to the basic assumption of this subject. Furthermore, unlike physical scientists implement economists can not experiment in the laboratory. They should take their place raw materials they find. The best thing they can do is focus on certain specific issues asfek they were examined, and then make the assumption that more or less realistic about the issue and decide what will happen in certain cases. (This is referred to as build an economic model of jargon is important to remember).

But actually there is a deeper reason which made economists argue. As the people in general they have different opinions about what is desired. An economist might ask the advice that "we must take steps to encourage the planting of capital rather than consumerism. This will give us greater economic growth "For economists, it is clear that the main goal is economic growth. Others will respond with "We must tighten control over the investment business due to many industries that will cause pollution and damage to nature" for economists is that the main goal is the protection of the environment. Such opinions that say what is desired and undesired known as the assessment value (value Judgments). (Sometimes called a normative statement, as opposed to positive statements, which are considered as independent opinion). The assessment the lot behind the economic argument. Pengkadian like that explains why the political parties of the opposition can always produce a set of distinguished economists to support their views. In particular they are behind one of the enduring arguments in economics. Among those who believe that the most important thing is full employment (full employment) and the high level of economic activity and those whose main goal is a reasonable supply of money, with a fairly stable price level. This argument is rampant in various forms for more than one hundred years.

Finally, arguments arise because people, including many economists, expects too much of economics. They believe that economics should be able to provide answers to all problems of our material and dismayed when the science did not manage to do. They then desperately seeking a way out. However, these efforts often encounter failures due to these issues is beyond the scope that may be resolved by economic theory. For example, economic progress in the western world is very constrained in the 1970's due to rising oil prices. There is no single economic theory that can solve this problem. However tetntu course this can not stop the government in the western world and its economic advisers to try to find a solution. In fact, they always claim to be successful.

Thus this post when there is less or more please write in the comments.

 the source image : www.askon.org.tr