Do you think economics has become less of a dismal science?

Question

For explanation of the term, see:

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismal_Science

Oh and donate some money to Wikipedia, all you rich economists. We keep the world going round, don't forget.

Answer 1

No. Because no one wants the truth, no one listens to the truth, no one admits the truth, and I'm not going to be the messenger boy that gets slayed for telling it :P
Wikipedia is nose candy for the trivial pursuit crowd, I've added stuff and no one figured it out yet :))

Answer 2

Economics is the dismal science because it concentrates on the fact that whenever you do one thing, you are necessarily giving up something else. You are constantly losing opportunties. For example, a normal person might think it was great that you earned $200 at your job today, but an economist would say, wait, if you had put your resources toward their best use, you could have earned $300 today (again, just an example figure). Therefore, you actually lost $100. Since choice and opportunity cost will always exist, economics will always be the dismal science.

Answer 3

Dismal science is the excessive concentration of economics on materialism. Well, I believe that economics has become less of a dismal science because of the emergence of some branches of economics that opposes the egocentric/egoistic nature of man that economics and economists tend to advance in the past. These are the “Welferian or the Welfare” economists and the Altruistic school of thoughts.

Answer 4

Economics as a dismal science centered around the suggestion that population would out grow food supply. As time passed, people realised that this was the case and it was laughed at. Nowdays, it can be seen in two ways:

1) the earth is having major changes to its environment, and once fertile land is fading as the population increases;

2) the advancement of technology makes growing food easier and in some cases we can change dna in food to make it larger and healthier.

Perhaps economics as a dismal science can be debated, but there is no doubt that the mathematics behind the orginal idea is flawed lol

Answer 5

Damn tootin',
It is such a wide ranging subject today. The importance of economic policy has never been greater and its prominance on the world stage (John Nash, Muhammad Yunus, Steven Levitt) is getting bigger all the time. This all the while its fundamental assumptions are being assaulted in studies determining 'real' human behavior. (versus homo economicus).

I believe its gotten past the efficiency arguments and is delving more into the efficacy issues.

Peace

Answer 6

Economics, without learning nature, properties, composition, laws and classification of wealth started studying application of wealth. In stead of moving on the tested path of chemists who study nature, properties, laws and classification of matter, economists moved on path of social scientists. Economics is a mirror image of chemistry and is a material science. Law of Conservation of Wealth, Law of Equilibrium, Law of Mass Action of Chemical Reactions are prerequisites for study of economics. Even the definition of wealth of economics is faulty. wealth may/may not have Value in Exchange. Let economists correct the basics and it turns out to be a exact science and gains credibility.

Answer 7

Well, i think that the science is still dismal (especially these days), but I have noticed that econom-ists have become much more interesting, fun and human!