Our Conclusions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<center>[[Group 3: Normative and Positive Traditions in Economics|Home]] | [[Introduction: What are Positive and Normative Economics?|Introduction]] | [[Normative Economics]] | [[Positive Economics]] | [[Economics Today & Its Future]] | [[Our Conclusions|Conclusion]] | [[Sources and Works Cited|Works Cited]]</center> | <center>[[Group 3: Normative and Positive Traditions in Economics|Home]] | [[Introduction: What are Positive and Normative Economics?|Introduction]] | [[Normative Economics]] | [[Positive Economics]] | [[Economics Today & Its Future]] | [[Our Conclusions|Conclusion]] | [[Sources and Works Cited|Works Cited]]</center> | ||
The classicals espouse both normative and positive views, even if they don't refer to them explicity as such, and it is our belief that this tradition of considering both positions strengthens each of the arguments and allows you to make predictions and suggestions about a wider range of things. It is lamentable that for much of the recent history of thought in economics that normative positions seem to have fallen by the wayside in favor of a more concrete positivist positions. However, more recently, authors like Sen, Peart, Levy, and others are now beginning to revive this tradition of the classicals. These authors have recognized the benefits of considering both what is and what should be while also appreciating the distinction between them and the value in making such a distinction. Although normative positions have always been present throughout economics it is our hope that economists who espouse positive views will take normative positions more seriously, and consider the merits of doing both traditions alongside one another. | The classicals espouse both normative and positive views, even if they don't refer to them explicity as such, and it is our belief that this tradition of considering both positions strengthens each of the arguments and allows you to make predictions and suggestions about a wider range of things. It is lamentable that for much of the recent history of thought in economics that normative positions seem to have fallen by the wayside in favor of a more concrete positivist positions. However, more recently, authors like Sen, Peart, Levy, and others are now beginning to revive this tradition of the classicals. These authors have recognized the benefits of considering both what is and what should be while also appreciating the distinction between them and the value in making such a distinction. Although normative positions have always been present throughout economics it is our hope that economists who espouse positive views will take normative positions more seriously, and consider the merits of doing both traditions alongside one another. | ||
<center>[[Group 3: Normative and Positive Traditions in Economics|Home]] | [[Introduction: What are Positive and Normative Economics?|Introduction]] | [[Normative Economics]] | [[Positive Economics]] | [[Economics Today & Its Future]] | [[Our Conclusions|Conclusion]] | [[Sources and Works Cited|Works Cited]]</center> | <center>[[Group 3: Normative and Positive Traditions in Economics|Home]] | [[Introduction: What are Positive and Normative Economics?|Introduction]] | [[Normative Economics]] | [[Positive Economics]] | [[Economics Today & Its Future]] | [[Our Conclusions|Conclusion]] | [[Sources and Works Cited|Works Cited]]</center> | ||
Revision as of 05:03, 2 May 2007
The classicals espouse both normative and positive views, even if they don't refer to them explicity as such, and it is our belief that this tradition of considering both positions strengthens each of the arguments and allows you to make predictions and suggestions about a wider range of things. It is lamentable that for much of the recent history of thought in economics that normative positions seem to have fallen by the wayside in favor of a more concrete positivist positions. However, more recently, authors like Sen, Peart, Levy, and others are now beginning to revive this tradition of the classicals. These authors have recognized the benefits of considering both what is and what should be while also appreciating the distinction between them and the value in making such a distinction. Although normative positions have always been present throughout economics it is our hope that economists who espouse positive views will take normative positions more seriously, and consider the merits of doing both traditions alongside one another.
