Is it necessary to learn all the math to understand Econ?

[RadioRaheem84]

To better understand classical economics from a Marxist perspective, is it necessary to understand all the complex financial formulas? I do understand the need for some basic math and calculus but can it be understood as a philosophy without it? I have the littlest patience for it and seem to think that it's relatively unnecessary for understanding it on a macro level.

Anyone else share this sentiment? Every single time I think I've ascended to a new level in Economics I am frustrated by reading another Fed Reserve paper to understand a point I read in a general econ article further.

Is it being quite immature, lazy or naive to think that the complex equations in classical economics are largely intellectual masturbation and the theories surrounding the use of those equations are largely unneeded when learning Economics from a Marxist perspective?

I have a friend I am meeting for lunch in two weeks and he was an assistant economist for Fed Reserve in NYC and we've agreed to meet and discuss economics. I've been reading one of his papers and a lot of is pretty simple to dismantle except for when the paper dives into these complex financial formulas to explain things. Now to discuss things with him is the math largely needed? I really don't see how it contributes to an honest economic debate. I could understand how simple math or M-C-M type of calculations Marx used would be beneficial, but the stuff used in his paper seem over the top, too complex and too "expert-ish" to decipher.

[RadioRaheem84]

I hope the question wasn't too strange.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

but the stuff used in his paper seem over the top, too complex and too "expert-ish" to decipher.

I am convinced that this is more the point than anything else: the actual calculations are largely irrelevant compared to the point of mystifying the operations of the economy, obfuscating it all with a load of irrelevant statistics.

[Red Commissar]

A lot of these equations go into making forecasts that a lot of investors use (such as the Bloomberg terminal) but they aren't absolute. It would help to know them however to understand what contemporary/acceptable is coming from. You would be right in saying that it's an excersize in mental masturbation, it helps with the experts in these fields to feel that their speciality is a true science, on level with natural sciences, that follows some sort of predictable (for the most part) phenomena. Note that to this day Economics is still considered a social science which in a sense relegates it to something in a different realml than a hard science (I don't use hard in the sense of difficulty). Still, it needs to be understood.

Paradoxically this urge to find a way to understand and predict economic trends, or force it into a form appropriate for it, ends up putting them in the same pursuit that their much derided command economy bogeyman belong to.

[Rafiq]

Economics from a Marxist perspective is incredibly vague. It depends on what exactly you are attempting to understand. From a macro-level, all that is necessitated is an understanding of historical materialism and the specific and unique characteristics that define the capitalist mode of production. However, it is indeed possible to understand the capitalist mode of production on a level as profound as what you would find in Capital. In that case, yes, a sufficient level of mathematics is required in order to understand the immediate functions and dynamics of the capitalist mode of production. The problem, however, is not that capitalism cannot be reduced to simple mathematics in it's systematic sense, i.e. predicting crises and so on, the functions of capital accumulation, rather, the models used today, the underlying formulas of which are being used to understand the capitalist mode of production from a financial or academic standpoint are almost all virtually garbage. Because again, those formulas reside under bogus presumptions about the nature of social relations to begin with.

[Akshay!]

I don't know if someone has already mentioned this but check out the reading capital with david harvey series on YouTube. It was really helpful to me.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well that's what I meant, Rafiq. I don't mind some of the math in Capital so much as I mind the complex financial formulas in bourgeois work. The predictive models as well as the more complex econometrics of classical Econ. I get Econ 101 macro and micro. It's the stuff beyond that I wonder if its necessary to comprehend in order to diffuse classical arguments.

My high school friend who works for the Fed saw some of my blog posts in economics found it interesting and wants to have a chat. I don't find any of the stuff he publishes to be all that challenging but I'm looking at from a philosophy of economics perspective rather than from a pure technical economics perspective. The complex formulas he has in his work is pure gibberish to me.

Reason why I'm asking is that I don't want to look like or feel like I'm learning all this material in the sane way a creationist intelligent design apologist learns the philosophy of science to peddle creationism rather than the actual science itself.

So is the complex math really necessary to devote ample study too?

[ComradeOm]

So is the complex math really necessary to devote ample study too?Yes. You can coast along on the surface to a degree but if you want to understand economics to any depth then at some point you are going to have to engage with the mathematics. This is not just "bourgeois work" - the same econometric principles (ie linear programming) also underpin planned economic models. Many were in fact pioneered by Soviets mathematicians

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes. You can coast along on the surface to a degree but if you want to understand economics to any depth then at some point you are going to have to engage with the mathematics. This is not just "bourgeois work" - the same econometric principles (ie linear programming) also underpin planned economic models. Many were in fact pioneered by Soviets mathematicians

A.) If it was that relevant then why isn't Econ a hard science?

B.) So the planned economy of state socialism was in essense guides by the same models as liberal economies?

[ComradeOm]

A.) If it was that relevant then why isn't Econ a hard science?I don't understand. Classical Studies is not a language course yet it's still advisable to know Greek or Latin to really understand the subject


B.) So the planned economy of state socialism was in essense guides by the same models as liberal economies?Not the same models, the same principles. Which is why I used the term. Linear programming was first developed by Soviet mathematician Leonid Kantorovich, who applied it to planning problems. It's use in underpinning Western economic models followed decades later. And I can tell you know that if you have any ambition of understanding (beyond the basic narrative level) how a planned economy works then you will need to develop an understanding of these mathematics

[RadioRaheem84]

Well I have plans to be an economist. I want to study political economy and learn the philosophical underpinnings of classical economics. Beyond the rudimentary math required of macro and micro and few other intro courses I was asking if there was any need to go futher? I wasn't planning on getting a PHd in the subject but to learn enough to employ a good critique of the subject.

[MarxSchmarx]

Here's my view on this.

I think you need to know enough about statistics to be able to engage capitalist, orthodox economics seriously on its own terms. In my view, the analysis is rotten at its core. But it's like a broken car - to understand how that rot is making the whole thing inoperable, you have to understand the basics of how the mistake can propagate.

So if you are serious about taking on the economic arguments of capitailsm, and see your role in the struggle as waging an intellectual battle with the edifice of capitalist economics (given that you are thinking of getting a PhD in the field to some extent this is the only logical conclusion), then you need to know how the other side works.

Moreover, I think the case for socialism should be built, to the extent it possibly can, on rigorous and clear economic thinking. Several Marxist economists, for instance people like Okishio and Kantorovich, have not shied away from mathematical analysis that can hold its own against the capitalists. I think the left is correct to expect this level of rigor from our economists, just as we expect good writing from our propagandists or solid analysis from our historians.

As to the complex math that underlies a lot of economic theorizing, it's just glorified speculation and if it has no real world data to back it up (and a surprising amount of it does not), to quote a Scottish enlightenment figure other than Adam Smith, "commit it then to flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." But, and it's an important caveat, that's only if data fail to back up the theory.

[RadioRaheem84]

I just re-read my post and noticed that I wrote that I had plans to be an economist. I should've said that I have NO plans to be an economist and wanted to understand the discipline from a political economist standpoint or poli sci standpoint. Can this be done with basically studying the rudimentary math involved in early entry level courses and perhaps a few extensive ones? Beyond that I think it becomes like you said a practice in sophistry.

When I read John Bellamy Foster or David Harvey, I think in reading brilliant critiques. Even Brendan M. Cooney, but are these extensive enough critiques that they're considered real economic critiques? Or are they more poli sci?

[Prof. Oblivion]

Well I have plans to be an economist. I want to study political economy and learn the philosophical underpinnings of classical economics. Beyond the rudimentary math required of macro and micro and few other intro courses I was asking if there was any need to go futher? I wasn't planning on getting a PHd in the subject but to learn enough to employ a good critique of the subject.

What do you plan on doing as an economist? Because any economist job is going to require not only grappling with the numbers but also engaging on a material - not theoretical - basis, most likely being what you would consider "bourgeois". I am not sure you understand what economists do.

If you want to critique the subject as an economist then you are going to need to become a professor because nobody outside of universities will pay you to write a philosophical critique of economics (bourgeois or otherwise), and that's only if you're lucky enough to be one of the very, very few who can obtain tenure.


I just re-read my post and noticed that I wrote that I had plans to be an economist. I should've said that I have NO plans to be an economist and wanted to understand the discipline from a political economist standpoint or poli sci standpoint. Can this be done with basically studying the rudimentary math involved in early entry level courses and perhaps a few extensive ones? Beyond that I think it becomes like you said a practice in sophistry.

When I read John Bellamy Foster or David Harvey, I think in reading brilliant critiques. Even Brendan M. Cooney, but are these extensive enough critiques that they're considered real economic critiques? Or are they more poli sci?Ah, just saw this after writing the above passage. I don't see how, for example, you could understand macroeconomics enough to write a critique of it without understanding the math underpinning it. The math isn't an afterthought; it is the substance of the work. One can't analyze interest rates without understanding how yields and bond prices are related, for example, or how interest rates play out in the broader economy and affect macroeconomic policy, all of which requires a firm grasp of the mathematics.

I would consider critiques such as Foster's or Harvey's to be inadequate precisely because of the fact that they are not substantive but rather casual reads that only deal with the surface of what they are attempting to critique.

Another example is this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/real-wages-stagnating-t181522/index.html) thread that you started. How can one even begin to address the question if one doesn't understand the relationship between real wages, nominal wages and the inflation rate? Or how capital flows affect economic metrics?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

You need to understand the premise behind the models, even if you overlook the models and formulae themselves. When reading papers I mostly tend to skip over the formulas that resort to mass differentiation and what seems like most of the greek alphabet, it obscures the point for me. But it's important to understand at least the beginning and end of a formula so you can engage with it and critique it.

You don't need to know how to do 'maths', per se, you just need to be able to understand some basic principles - particularly of statistics, because a lot of the formulae you see in econometric papers lead to a regression, which is a statistical tool commonly used to test the (potentially causal) relationship between variables. Of course in economics it's very important to be able to do this, and as regression analysis is the foremost way of doing this currently, it's important to at least be able to have some grasp of regression analysis and basic statistical methods. As for other maths, I think you can get by without serious mathematical skills if you are just looking to read, understand and engage/critique a bit. Only really need advanced maths skills if you want to write your own paper or formula and you need the mad maths skills to prove your formula works.

[L.A.P.]

one needs to only look at the Modigliani-Miller theorem to see the flaws some of these formulas have in the assumptions on social relations. The theorem states that in an efficient market without taxes, bankruptcy costs, asymmetric information, and general state-regulation; how a corporation is financed (investments, borrowed capital, etc.) is irrelevant as the surplus-value will always be enough to pay it all off. This assumes that the market is frictionless, which we all know is crap because the rate of exchange can't always keep up with the increases in production. And this theorem is a huge influence, if not the basis, on many companies' capital structures (no wonder why they look like deer in headlight when a bust hits).

also, like a lot of other bourgeois theories, relies on the mythical consumer independent of the production process

[CatsAttack]

one needs to only look at the Modigliani-Miller theorem to see the flaws these formulas have in the assumptions on social relations. The theorem states that in an efficient market without taxes, bankruptcy costs, asymmetric information, and general state-regulation; how a corporation is financed (investments, borrowed capital, etc.) is irrelevant as the surplus-value will always be enough to pay it all off. This assumes that the market is frictionless, which we all know is crap because the rate of exchange can't always keep up with the increases in production. And this theorem is a huge influence, if not the basis, on many companies' capital structures (no wonder why they look like deer in headlight when a bust hits).

also, like a lot of other bourgeois theories, relies on the mythical consumer independent of the production process



Are you saying the theorem is incorrect? If so, why?'

[RadioRaheem84]

Cats attack are you a libertarian? Aside from the elitism, the self evident truth assertions and the brazen demeanor I would say you fit the typical description. All that's missing is the grammar nazi behavior and we have a winner.

[Paul Cockshott]

Something I have learned in some 40 years of working life is that it always helps to know more maths. But you dont have to know it all at the begining, you pick up new branches of it when you need them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Something I have learned in some 40 years of working life is that it always helps to know more maths. But you dont have to know it all at the begining, you pick up new branches of it when you need them.

I am sure it helped that your a comp sci professor. But for the most part can you read all the complex financial jargon in Federal Reserve papers?

[Paul Cockshott]

I dont read federal reserve papers so I dont know. I think an ability to read and analyse national accounts and financial accounts is more useful to start with than some of the maths that is taught to economists

When I say it is always helpful to know more maths, it is because there are so many aspects of reality that can be abstractly represented in mathematical form and reasoned about or simulated in this way.

[blake 3:17]

You should learn more math.

[Zanthorus]

A few thoughts.

In the first place, how are you going to determine if something is useful or not if you don't understand it? I mean, you can ask on a forum like this one, and people will give you answers one way or the other, but if you don't really grasp the subject matter then you'll essentially be choosing blind and hoping that other people have done your thinking for you correctly. Not the best way to solve a puzzle.

In the second place, maybe you are put off more by the appearance of hard maths than the actual place itself? I remember first reading papers about musical set theory and being put off by some of the symbols used which translated to my brain as 'hard maths' which I had long been put off of by secondary school level maths education. But when I sat down to work through it the appearance crumbled pretty much the instant I learned the meanings of the basic symbols.

Of course, the maths used to understand the workings of the global economy is probably a degree harder than the maths used to work out the retrograde inversion of a given twelve-tone row. The point is that sometimes it can happen that we are put off maths because it's maths, and we've been programmed with the association that maths must necessarily difficult because it was difficult for us the way our teachers taught it in school. It sounds to me like you haven't even given the maths a go, how do you know if it's really all that difficult until you've at least had a swing at understanding it?

Also there are some really cool Youtube videos out there by users like Vi Hart explaining stuff related to maths. Not necessarily econ related but if you think of maths as a really dry academic subject it could help shift your perspective.

[cyu]

If you want to debate Scientologists, how much Scientology theory do you need to read?

Perhaps you can't truly understand and debate Scientologists unless you've been raised as a Scientologist. Am I right or what?

[RadioRaheem84]

If you want to debate Scientologists, how much Scientology theory do you need to read?

Perhaps you can't truly understand and debate Scientologists unless you've been raised as a Scientologist. Am I right or what?

Well, the reason I debate Christians well enough is because I used to be one and know their presupposed beliefs. I studied theology for a long time and now can pick up on it and it's assumptions.

Atheists and anti-Theists are kinda bad at debating Christians, especially Evangelicals because they have a bland view of Christianity, a more secular pantheistic version which negates a lot of the Bible. They really do take one verse completely out of context and stretch to mean something bad and proceed to mock it for not meeting contemporary Western standards. BUT if they were to actually presuppose the Bible as the inherent word like Calvinistic Christians who hold to Sola Scriptura, solely scripture, meaning they take the Bible at it's word and start from there they would have an easier time dismantling the arguments using their own rhetoric and logic against them. I've seen plenty of atheists not hold their ground in front of a presupposationalist Calvinist Evangelical Christian.

I am wondering if the same has to be applied to Economists? You have to learn their presumptions and logic and their math.

[RadioRaheem84]

A few thoughts.

In the first place, how are you going to determine if something is useful or not if you don't understand it? I mean, you can ask on a forum like this one, and people will give you answers one way or the other, but if you don't really grasp the subject matter then you'll essentially be choosing blind and hoping that other people have done your thinking for you correctly. Not the best way to solve a puzzle.

In the second place, maybe you are put off more by the appearance of hard maths than the actual place itself? I remember first reading papers about musical set theory and being put off by some of the symbols used which translated to my brain as 'hard maths' which I had long been put off of by secondary school level maths education. But when I sat down to work through it the appearance crumbled pretty much the instant I learned the meanings of the basic symbols.

Of course, the maths used to understand the workings of the global economy is probably a degree harder than the maths used to work out the retrograde inversion of a given twelve-tone row. The point is that sometimes it can happen that we are put off maths because it's maths, and we've been programmed with the association that maths must necessarily difficult because it was difficult for us the way our teachers taught it in school. It sounds to me like you haven't even given the maths a go, how do you know if it's really all that difficult until you've at least had a swing at understanding it?

Also there are some really cool Youtube videos out there by users like Vi Hart explaining stuff related to maths. Not necessarily econ related but if you think of maths as a really dry academic subject it could help shift your perspective.

I can do basic math and have taken Econ 1 and 2, maco and micro. I skipped over Econometrics and any advanced stuff and instead chose more poli sci related econ courses like international trade and stuff.

As far as math, I never made it past Algebra II and Stats. No trig. Calculus scares the shiz out of me.

[cyu]

Would you say you're unqualified to debate Scientologists then?

Would an anarchist be unqualified to debate a Maoist?

Would a Randroid be unqualified to debate a Marxist?

[Comrade #138672]

I would say it's useful, but not necessary [to most]. In my opinion, at least some Marxists need to possess some knowledge on [Marxist] economics. It could help, for example, to prove the falling rate of profit (http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1998/) and things like that. I'm still trying to understand the proof.

But you don't need to understand the underlying mathematics in order to understand that Capitalism is not in our class interest, that it is going to collapse, and that Socialism needs to replace it. All it does is help reinforce already existing convictions and "shoot down" our [academic] enemies.