Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#1

Post by gnosis » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:18 AM UTC

Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?
monthlyreview.org

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#2

Post by julius_geezer » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:33 AM UTC

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#3

Post by nlabs » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:40 AM UTC

julius_geezer wrote: post #2

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#4

Post by glhaynes » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 1:53 AM UTC

nlabs wrote: post #3

julius_geezer wrote: post #2

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems (from a certain perspective, at least) that physics is much more thoroughly understood than economics. We can make really precise predictions in physics... economics, not so much.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#5

Post by Semiapies » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:00 AM UTC

nlabs wrote: post #3

julius_geezer wrote: post #2

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics"

Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#6

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:01 AM UTC

glhaynes wrote: post #4

nlabs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems (from a certain perspective, at least) that physics is much more thoroughly understood than economics. We can make really precise predictions in physics... economics, not so much.

[deleted]

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#7

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:02 AM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #5

nlabs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics" Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.

[deleted]

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#8

Post by camccann » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:02 AM UTC

nlabs wrote: post #3

julius_geezer wrote: post #2

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

I remain to be convinced that economists can, in general, intelligently contribute to economics. At least physics gets results...

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#9

Post by gnosis » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:05 AM UTC

julius_geezer wrote: post #2

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

Einstein anticipates and addresses this criticism in his essay:

"...economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future [which has evolved beyond the 'predatory phase' with which economists of today are concerned with].

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. ...

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."

(Comments in brackets are mine)

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#10

Post by Anon84 » Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 2:06 AM UTC

Semiapies wrote: post #5

nlabs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics" Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.

You mean like the 2000 Nobel prize in Economics?

    The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were
    quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in
    Physics with highest honors.

    I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student
    at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of
    human behavior.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/...