Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #697608 > unrolled thread

"Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-08 10:22 -0700
    Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-08 21:33 -0500
      Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-09 08:28 -0700
        Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 12:21 -0500
          Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-09 10:52 -0700
            Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 13:04 -0500
              Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 13:12 -0500
              Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-09 17:20 -0700
                Re: "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 20:50 -0500

#697608 — "Economics is a lot harder than physics, because people can think." J. Doyne Farmer

According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.

It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.

From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.

I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.



Abhinav Lal

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#697675

On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
> 
> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
> 
> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
> 
> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
> 
> 
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> 

a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697735

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
> > 
> > It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
> > 
> > From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
> > 
> > I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal
> > 
> 
> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.

According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697752

On 8/9/2018 10:28 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
>>>
>>> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
>>>
>>> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
>>>
>>> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>
>>
>> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
>> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.
> 
> According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.
> 
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor 
> 

yep,  those closer to the money stream, make more money. (old saying in
my country)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697762

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:52:05 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/9/2018 10:28 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
> >>>
> >>> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
> >>>
> >>> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
> >>>
> >>> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Abhinav Lal
> >>>
> >>
> >> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
> >> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.
> > 
> > According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor 
> > 
> 
> yep,  those closer to the money stream, make more money. (old saying in
> my country)

I made a mistake in giving astronomers salaries instead of physicists salaries above.  Physicists median is 120k, top 10% 190k.  So physicists earn more than economists.

But economists in Finance and Insurance average 125k.

I do know that the top economists working for the biggest investment banks earn very high salaries.

I apologise for my mistakes.

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697765

On 8/9/2018 12:52 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:52:05 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/9/2018 10:28 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
>>>>>
>>>>> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
>>>> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.
>>>
>>> According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor 
>>>
>>
>> yep,  those closer to the money stream, make more money. (old saying in
>> my country)
> 
> I made a mistake in giving astronomers salaries instead of physicists salaries above.  Physicists median is 120k, top 10% 190k.  So physicists earn more than economists.
> 
> But economists in Finance and Insurance average 125k.
> 
> I do know that the top economists working for the biggest investment banks earn very high salaries.
> 
> I apologise for my mistakes.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> Writer & Investor
> 

there are very few jobs for astronomers, few jobs for physicists.  The
statistics on how many jobs are online in US Gov somewhere, with salarie
range.  I consider math used by physiciscs harder than economist, but
that is a vague generalization at best.

stock brokers, or broker agents in Manhatten make well above $200k, I
think they make $$ on commission sales and split part with the company,
but they have to go find their own customers or get laid off.  And their
skills are not math,  but relationship selling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697766

On 8/9/2018 1:04 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/9/2018 12:52 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:52:05 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2018 10:28 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
>>>>> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.
>>>>
>>>> According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.
>>>>
>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>> Writer & Investor 
>>>>
>>>
>>> yep,  those closer to the money stream, make more money. (old saying in
>>> my country)
>>
>> I made a mistake in giving astronomers salaries instead of physicists salaries above.  Physicists median is 120k, top 10% 190k.  So physicists earn more than economists.
>>
>> But economists in Finance and Insurance average 125k.
>>
>> I do know that the top economists working for the biggest investment banks earn very high salaries.
>>
>> I apologise for my mistakes.
>>
>> Abhinav Lal 
>> Writer & Investor
>>
> 
> there are very few jobs for astronomers, few jobs for physicists.  The
> statistics on how many jobs are online in US Gov somewhere, with salarie
> range.  I consider math used by physiciscs harder than economist, but
> that is a vague generalization at best.
> 
> stock brokers, or broker agents in Manhatten make well above $200k, I
> think they make $$ on commission sales and split part with the company,
> but they have to go find their own customers or get laid off.  And their
> skills are not math,  but relationship selling.
> 

lot of info on this site;

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/Life-Physical-and-Social-Science/Physicists-and-astronomers.htm

note # of jobs! only 20K jobs in the entire USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697818

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 11:34:37 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/9/2018 12:52 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:52:05 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2018 10:28 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
> >>>> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Abhinav Lal
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
> >>>> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.
> >>>
> >>> According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.
> >>>
> >>> Abhinav Lal
> >>> Writer & Investor 
> >>>
> >>
> >> yep,  those closer to the money stream, make more money. (old saying in
> >> my country)
> > 
> > I made a mistake in giving astronomers salaries instead of physicists salaries above.  Physicists median is 120k, top 10% 190k.  So physicists earn more than economists.
> > 
> > But economists in Finance and Insurance average 125k.

That should be Median not average.  According to Quora, the best paying jobs in USA are held by medical professionals.

Abhinav Lal 

> > 
> > I do know that the top economists working for the biggest investment banks earn very high salaries.
> > 
> > I apologise for my mistakes.
> > 
> > Abhinav Lal 
> > Writer & Investor
> > 
> 
> there are very few jobs for astronomers, few jobs for physicists.  The
> statistics on how many jobs are online in US Gov somewhere, with salarie
> range.  I consider math used by physiciscs harder than economist, but
> that is a vague generalization at best.
> 
> stock brokers, or broker agents in Manhatten make well above $200k, I
> think they make $$ on commission sales and split part with the company,
> but they have to go find their own customers or get laid off.  And their
> skills are not math,  but relationship selling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697834

On 8/9/2018 7:20 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 11:34:37 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/9/2018 12:52 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 10:52:05 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2018 10:28 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 8:03:24 AM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/8/2018 12:22 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> According to mathematician J. Doyne Farmer, in edge.org, in "Collective Awareness", he talks about economics, and building better economic models to predict the future.  People play a central role in economics, and the idea that they behave rationally has been discredited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is very difficult to predict the behaviour of people not acting logically, but acting emotionally with all their cognitive biases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From my experience studying economics and physics, I must argue that the maths required to do even classical physics is a lot harder than mastering the basics of macroeconomics.  However physics can give much better predictions than economics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would argue that much greater mathematical skill is required in being a successful physicist, than a successful economist.  However, top economists make more money than top physicists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a lot of physicists do stock market prediction as a Quant.  Using math
>>>>>> skills, not physics so much.  Huge $$$ there.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to various sources, the median wages for economists and physicists is similar at about USD 100,000.  However as I stated, top economists make more than top physicists.  The highest earning top 10% of physicists earned over USD 165k, while the highest earning top 10% of economists earned over USD 180k.
>>>>>
>>>>> Abhinav Lal
>>>>> Writer & Investor 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> yep,  those closer to the money stream, make more money. (old saying in
>>>> my country)
>>>
>>> I made a mistake in giving astronomers salaries instead of physicists salaries above.  Physicists median is 120k, top 10% 190k.  So physicists earn more than economists.
>>>
>>> But economists in Finance and Insurance average 125k.
> 
> That should be Median not average.  According to Quora, the best paying jobs in USA are held by medical professionals.
> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> 

medical is rough, as Drs have to pay for malpractice insurance which is
very steep.  I knew on Dr who cleared $250k a year but had to pay $85K
in insurance.

Petroleum engineers make a lot of money too


>>>
>>> I do know that the top economists working for the biggest investment banks earn very high salaries.
>>>
>>> I apologise for my mistakes.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal 
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>
>> there are very few jobs for astronomers, few jobs for physicists.  The
>> statistics on how many jobs are online in US Gov somewhere, with salarie
>> range.  I consider math used by physiciscs harder than economist, but
>> that is a vague generalization at best.
>>
>> stock brokers, or broker agents in Manhatten make well above $200k, I
>> think they make $$ on commission sales and split part with the company,
>> but they have to go find their own customers or get laid off.  And their
>> skills are not math,  but relationship selling.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web