Finance and Economics Subforum?

**Mogura** · 11-09-2009, 09:20 PM

Just a thought...

stasis · 11-09-2009, 09:57 PM

Politics and Current Events
Government, Law, History, Military, Economics, International Relations

**Mogura** · 11-09-2009, 10:06 PM

The fields of finance and economics are closely related, yet there are posts in both the Politics and Current Events and Work and Education subforums. Seems like it would be efficient to combine the 2 into a new subforum. But that's just my thought and idea. I'm sure it probably has been considered before, and there was probably a reason for not doing so*.

Nevermind. Carry on...

*There's never a good reason for not having a Marmot subforum.

**JohnDoe** · 11-09-2009, 10:12 PM

I agree with this. Finance is sufficiently different from the subjective bullshit that gets spewn in the politics forum that it might justify its own forum. Economics threads in the political forum tend to turn into political threads. Finance threads in the work forum tend to turn into personal experience threads. Perhaps the solution, and I can't believe I'm arguing this, is to move econ and finance under the science forum heading. It is an increasingly emperical subject, and has as much math as math these days, so this seems to fit the best without creating another forum (which is too narrow).

stasis · 11-09-2009, 10:15 PM

	Originally Posted by JohnDoe
	Finance is sufficiently different from the subjective bullshit that gets spewn in the politics forum that it might justify its own forum.

Thread volume is a critical factor in warranting the splitting of subforums. Does a significant volume exist along the economics topic? Quantify it?

**JohnDoe** · 11-09-2009, 10:18 PM

	Originally Posted by stasis
	Thread volume is a critical factor in warranting the splitting of subforums. Does a significant volume exist along the economics topic? Quantify it?

I'm pretty sure it does not merit spliting into a new subforum, which is why I'm arguing for moving econ from the politics subforum to the science subforum instead. Political discussions about economics could remain in the politics section, but discussions about economics itself (like the recent carry trade thread) could move over to the science subforum which is less subject to political nonsense. I as is hate to get involved in econ threads because they inevitabley start turning into a commentary on politics instead of economics. This is what I would like to see fixed.

**rahdam** · 11-09-2009, 10:20 PM

I like JohnDoe's suggestion.
Although, as it stands, the science forum is restricted to the hard sciences.
I'm not sure a soft science belongs.

Rudy · 11-09-2009, 10:26 PM

Hmm... even as an aspiring economist, I must admit that putting Economics in the Science section would be a poor classification; I oppose the suggestion.

A section with Finances and Economics may be justified, but as stasis said, it would depend on volume. As it is, almost all discussions of economics that I've seen on here are of a political nature.

**Mogura** · 11-09-2009, 10:27 PM

Build it and they will come...

Economics and Finance
Business, Economics, Capital Markets, Personal Finance, Global Trade, Investing

**rahdam** · 11-09-2009, 10:32 PM

The more I think about this, it feels wrong. Science is for the hard sciences; the soft sciences are scattered about, and I think it sets un unhealthy precedent to merge a soft science into the hard sciences forum.

**JohnDoe** · 11-09-2009, 10:39 PM

	Originally Posted by Rudy
	Hmm... even as an aspiring economist, I must admit that putting Economics in the Science section would be a poor classification; I oppose the suggestion. A section with Finances and Economics may be justified, but as stasis said, it would depend on volume. As it is, almost all discussions of economics that I've seen on here are of a political nature.

Yes but due to the increasing mathization of finance with things such as CAPM etc in the 60's, it is increasingly justified in calling it a hard science, albit one in its infancy.

	Originally Posted by rahdam
	The more I think about this, it feels wrong. Science is for the hard sciences; the soft sciences are scattered about, and I think it sets un unhealthy precedent to merge a soft science into the hard sciences forum.

Maybe the solution is that the soft sciences should have their own subforum? In any event I would not consider finance or economics a soft science anymore. It is significantly more rigorous then say, psychology or sociology. But it is less rigorous then say, physics.

**rahdam** · 11-09-2009, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

Yes but due to the increasing mathization of finance with things such as CAPM etc in the 60's, it is increasingly justified in calling it a hard science, albit one in its infancy.

Maybe the solution is that the soft sciences should have their own subforum? In any event I would not consider finance or economics a soft science anymore. It is significantly more rigorous then say, psychology or sociology. But it is less rigorous then say, physics.

Sociology and Psychology already have individual forums, with high post count.
A broad soft sciences subforum would be a clusterfuck I think.
I think the problem lies in the fact that the Politics subforum casts a necessarily wide-net; economics, politics, and social policy are all closely related. At times, we wish to discuss them independently. More frequently, we wish to discuss them as they relate to each other. I could imagine 3 subforums beneath the politics subforum, but I don't think any of them would have sufficient post count to be justified. Furthermore, discussions would inevitably stray into the other related disciplines; would these be classified as off-topic and deleted? Would the thread be moved?

The politics subforum is far from an optimal classification, but I think that the suboptimality is necessary given the breadth of topics and, more importantly, the relationships between those topics, that the forum is expected to contain.

**JohnDoe** · 11-09-2009, 10:49 PM

Well I mean the problem is that it would be nice to be able to get a more strongly moderated econ section so that econ and finance do not turn into political discussions. About the only way I see to do that is to move some of the topics to a different subforum.

**rahdam** · 11-09-2009, 10:54 PM

	Originally Posted by JohnDoe
	Well I mean the problem is that it would be nice to be able to get a more strongly moderated econ section so that econ and finance do not turn into political discussions. About the only way I see to do that is to move some of the topics to a different subforum.

It's true the current relevant forum does not lend itself to pure discussions in any one discipline. This is particularly relevant to economics, which is more scientific than politics or social policy. Nonetheless, volume is an issue, as is the implicit desire to restrict the variety of responses you might otherwise garner.

**ZincLysine** · 11-10-2009, 01:51 AM

Economics is just as subjective as any other social science.

Finance is sufficiently different from economics that it should stay in the work section.

**admittedheretic** · 11-10-2009, 03:05 AM

It would only be useful if it was applied. Hint* buy/sell subforum

**JohnDoe** · 11-10-2009, 04:24 AM

	Originally Posted by ZincLysine
	Economics is just as subjective as any other social science. Finance is sufficiently different from economics that it should stay in the work section.

Modern economics is certainly not any more subjective then finance.

**ZincLysine** · 11-10-2009, 05:32 AM

As someone who's just graduated from "modern" economics studying both the financial and the social, I disagree. People who think economics is an exact science have failed to understand the nature of economics.

Economics is a great analytical tool. Econometrics reduces parts of it to mathematics and particularly statistics. Yet none of that is exact and its all filtered through a person's philosophical interpretation.

**Googamanga** · 11-12-2009, 10:54 PM

second that thought! or is it 19 now?

**JohnDoe** · 11-13-2009, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by ZincLysine

As someone who's just graduated from "modern" economics studying both the financial and the social, I disagree. People who think economics is an exact science have failed to understand the nature of economics.

Economics is a great analytical tool. Econometrics reduces parts of it to mathematics and particularly statistics. Yet none of that is exact and its all filtered through a person's philosophical interpretation.

If you can use statistics and still end up with philosophical questions your doing it wrong. :D

**Aristarce** · 11-13-2009, 04:58 AM

I am holding my breath until we get our own "peasant free" sub-forum.

**Synamon** · 11-13-2009, 08:12 AM

	Originally Posted by stasis
	Thread volume is a critical factor in warranting the splitting of subforums. Does a significant volume exist along the economics topic? Quantify it?

I did a count for the last month. There are probably 5 threads in Work and Education and 10-15 (depending how you quantify the topic) in Politics and Current events that would fit in the proposed subforum. For reference, there are about 100 active threads for the past month in each subforum.

There is considerable overlap with politics when discussing economic policy so I don't really see any point in separating the threads out. The people who are interested in economics and business seem to read the two subforums where the threads are located and it doesn't appear that there are enough threads to require another subforum.

It is possible to customize your account and make your own pseudo-subforum by making a folder in your subscribed threads. You can subscribe to all the economics threads and create an economics folder to put them in. Then you can easily keep track of new posts in those threads.

**Aristarce** · 11-13-2009, 01:13 PM

Syn. If I sleep with you will that help us get our subforum?

**Googamanga** · 11-13-2009, 01:16 PM

just do it

**Synamon** · 11-13-2009, 01:19 PM

	Originally Posted by Aristarce
	Syn. If I sleep with you will that help us get our subforum?

You'd have to sleep with Jezebel and stasis since they are the ones who can make a new subforum. I'll just watch.

There is a tag for economics so you can use the tag search to find those threads easily. I believe some of the investing threads have been tagged using the finances tag as well.

11-09-2009, 09:20 PM	#1
Mogura Core Member [176%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,067	Just a thought...
Mogura is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 09:57 PM	#2
stasis Administrator MBTI: INTP Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 11,681	Politics and Current Events Government, Law, History, Military, Economics, International Relations
stasis is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:06 PM	#3
Mogura Core Member [176%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,067	The fields of finance and economics are closely related, yet there are posts in both the Politics and Current Events and Work and Education subforums. Seems like it would be efficient to combine the 2 into a new subforum. But that's just my thought and idea. I'm sure it probably has been considered before, and there was probably a reason for not doing so. Nevermind. Carry on... There's never a good reason for not having a Marmot subforum.
Mogura is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:12 PM	#4
JohnDoe Core Member [130%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 5,203	I agree with this. Finance is sufficiently different from the subjective bullshit that gets spewn in the politics forum that it might justify its own forum. Economics threads in the political forum tend to turn into political threads. Finance threads in the work forum tend to turn into personal experience threads. Perhaps the solution, and I can't believe I'm arguing this, is to move econ and finance under the science forum heading. It is an increasingly emperical subject, and has as much math as math these days, so this seems to fit the best without creating another forum (which is too narrow).
JohnDoe is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:20 PM	#7
rahdam Core Member [219%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 8,774	I like JohnDoe's suggestion. Although, as it stands, the science forum is restricted to the hard sciences. I'm not sure a soft science belongs.
rahdam is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:26 PM	#8
Rudy Administrator MBTI: INfJ Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 21,722	Hmm... even as an aspiring economist, I must admit that putting Economics in the Science section would be a poor classification; I oppose the suggestion. A section with Finances and Economics may be justified, but as stasis said, it would depend on volume. As it is, almost all discussions of economics that I've seen on here are of a political nature.
Rudy is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:27 PM	#9
Mogura Core Member [176%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 7,067	Build it and they will come... Economics and Finance Business, Economics, Capital Markets, Personal Finance, Global Trade, Investing
Mogura is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:32 PM	#10
rahdam Core Member [219%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 8,774	The more I think about this, it feels wrong. Science is for the hard sciences; the soft sciences are scattered about, and I think it sets un unhealthy precedent to merge a soft science into the hard sciences forum.
rahdam is offline post a comment

11-09-2009, 10:49 PM	#13
JohnDoe Core Member [130%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 5,203	Well I mean the problem is that it would be nice to be able to get a more strongly moderated econ section so that econ and finance do not turn into political discussions. About the only way I see to do that is to move some of the topics to a different subforum.
JohnDoe is offline post a comment

11-10-2009, 01:51 AM	#15
ZincLysine Member [27%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,112	Economics is just as subjective as any other social science. Finance is sufficiently different from economics that it should stay in the work section.
ZincLysine is offline post a comment

11-10-2009, 03:05 AM	#16
admittedheretic Veteran Member [69%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 2,794	It would only be useful if it was applied. Hint* buy/sell subforum
admittedheretic is offline post a comment

11-10-2009, 05:32 AM	#18
ZincLysine Member [27%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1,112	As someone who's just graduated from "modern" economics studying both the financial and the social, I disagree. People who think economics is an exact science have failed to understand the nature of economics. Economics is a great analytical tool. Econometrics reduces parts of it to mathematics and particularly statistics. Yet none of that is exact and its all filtered through a person's philosophical interpretation.
ZincLysine is offline post a comment

11-12-2009, 10:54 PM	#19
Googamanga Member [08%] MBTI: xNTx Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 324	second that thought! or is it 19 now?
Googamanga is offline post a comment

11-13-2009, 04:58 AM	#21
Aristarce Member [04%] MBTI: intx Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 196	I am holding my breath until we get our own "peasant free" sub-forum.
Aristarce is offline post a comment

11-13-2009, 01:13 PM	#23
Aristarce Member [04%] MBTI: intx Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 196	Syn. If I sleep with you will that help us get our subforum?
Aristarce is offline post a comment

11-13-2009, 01:16 PM	#24
Googamanga Member [08%] MBTI: xNTx Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 324	just do it
Googamanga is offline post a comment