The principles of economics are based in natural law as firmly as any other science.
However, sciences such as biology and physics are more conducive to performing experiments, and work in the "hard" sciences tends to get immediate results.
Because of the high testability of sciences such as chemistry and physics, there is a much greater consensus among experts in those fields as to what is true and what is not.
By contrast, economics is something that cannot be tested in a lab.
The laboratory for economic principles is the global economy.
In order to gain an understanding of how economics truly works, and how to behave in a fiscally responsible manner, one must study history, and examine the lives of people and countries who have learned the hard way.
In America, economic ideologies take place along a conservative/liberal continuum.
The fiscally liberal side generally believes that economic decisions should be centrally controlled by the government.
Without national control of most financial issues, people will not behave wisely enough to keep the economy strong.
In times of national economic crisis, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s or the recession of the late 2000s, government intervention in the form of stimulus packages is needed to keep the economy alive.
The fiscally conservatism side generally believes that economic decisions should be made by individual people and unregulated by government as much as possible.
If economic decisions are left to the people, the economy will be stable because the people have more of a vested interest in their economic security than the government does.
Fiscal conservatives generally view government intervention in times of economic crisis as part of the problem and not part of the solution.
The debate over which school of thought is more effective is not new.
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were at odds about whether to centralize the debt of the American states.
Jefferson generally opposed borrowing against a national deficit, while Hamilton saw it as the key to economic expansion.
Subsequent presidents have been associated with varying fiscal schools of thought.
Often a given president is credited for enhancing or hurting the economy, but this is perhaps an unfair and unwise judgment.
Economics can only be experimented with in the actual economy (often at the expense of the people), and results of a given action or policy may take more than the four or eight years that an American president is in office.
This means that Reagan's actions may have been the cause of the lessened national deficit during Clinton's term, even though Reagan's term saw an increase in national debt.
Probably the wisest way to run an economy is to examine past and present nations' respective policies and varying economic successes.
For example, the relative success of Switzerland compared with the recent collapse of Iceland's economy could yield valuable information about how to regulate or not regulate a national economy.
However, sciences such as biology and physics are more conducive to performing experiments, and work in the "hard" sciences tends to get immediate results.
Because of the high testability of sciences such as chemistry and physics, there is a much greater consensus among experts in those fields as to what is true and what is not.
By contrast, economics is something that cannot be tested in a lab.
The laboratory for economic principles is the global economy.
In order to gain an understanding of how economics truly works, and how to behave in a fiscally responsible manner, one must study history, and examine the lives of people and countries who have learned the hard way.
In America, economic ideologies take place along a conservative/liberal continuum.
The fiscally liberal side generally believes that economic decisions should be centrally controlled by the government.
Without national control of most financial issues, people will not behave wisely enough to keep the economy strong.
In times of national economic crisis, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s or the recession of the late 2000s, government intervention in the form of stimulus packages is needed to keep the economy alive.
The fiscally conservatism side generally believes that economic decisions should be made by individual people and unregulated by government as much as possible.
If economic decisions are left to the people, the economy will be stable because the people have more of a vested interest in their economic security than the government does.
Fiscal conservatives generally view government intervention in times of economic crisis as part of the problem and not part of the solution.
The debate over which school of thought is more effective is not new.
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were at odds about whether to centralize the debt of the American states.
Jefferson generally opposed borrowing against a national deficit, while Hamilton saw it as the key to economic expansion.
Subsequent presidents have been associated with varying fiscal schools of thought.
Often a given president is credited for enhancing or hurting the economy, but this is perhaps an unfair and unwise judgment.
Economics can only be experimented with in the actual economy (often at the expense of the people), and results of a given action or policy may take more than the four or eight years that an American president is in office.
This means that Reagan's actions may have been the cause of the lessened national deficit during Clinton's term, even though Reagan's term saw an increase in national debt.
Probably the wisest way to run an economy is to examine past and present nations' respective policies and varying economic successes.
For example, the relative success of Switzerland compared with the recent collapse of Iceland's economy could yield valuable information about how to regulate or not regulate a national economy.
Source...