How could economics not be behavioral? If it isn't behavioral, what the hell is it?
Charlie MungerRead
Economics is in many respects the queen of the soft sciences. It's expected to be better than the rest. It's my view that economics is better at the multi-disciplinary stuff than the rest of the soft science. And it's also my view that it's still lousy.
Interpretation
Economics, while a leading soft science, has its limitations despite its multidisciplinary nature.
In this quote, Charlie Munger expresses his belief that economics holds a prominent position among the social sciences due to its ability to incorporate various disciplines. However, he also acknowledges its shortcomings, suggesting that even though it excels in certain areas, it still falls short of reaching its full potential as a science.
In practice
In a lecture about the importance of economics in understanding social issues, one might use this quote to highlight the field's strengths and weaknesses.
How could economics not be behavioral? If it isn't behavioral, what the hell is it?
The world of derivatives is full of holes that very few people are really aware of. It's like hydrogen and oxygen sitting on the corner waiting for a little flame.
I believe in the discipline of mastering the best that other people have ever figured out. I don't believe in just sitting down and trying to dream it all up yourself. Nobody's that smart.
Look at this generation, with all of its electronic devices and multitasking. I will confidently predict less success than Warren, who just focused on reading.
Economics profession, they've been - they've been confident in various formulas, but economics is not physics. The same formula that works in one decade doesn't work in the next. Economics is a difficult subject.
As I talk about strengths and weaknesses in academic economics, one interesting fact you are entitled to know is that I never took a course in economics. And with this striking lack of credentials, you may wonder why I have the chutzpah to be up here giving this talk. The answer is I have a black belt in chutzpah. I was born with it.
Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting points and its rich environment. But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
I feel like every time a door is opened by science, suddenly there are a hundred doors that need to get opened. That's what makes it an everlasting, interesting experience to go through.
Mathematics allows for no hypocrisy and no vagueness.
Science and technology revolutionize our lives, but memory, tradition and myth frame our response.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.