Economics? Also not an exact science, and that's why we still have economic downturns. Moreover, economics never will be an exact science.
In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Economics Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/krugman-why-economics-failed.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), Paul Krugman asks why economic knowledge was not used to prevent the "Great Recession." Krugman responds to his own question by observing:
"One answer is that most people find the logic of policy in a depressed economy counterintuitive. Instead, what resonates with the public are misleading analogies with the finances of an individual family, which is why Mr. Obama began echoing Mr. Boehner."
True, individual families cannot print their own money or borrow it without limitations. On the other hand, if a government prints or borrows money without limitation, inevitably the value of its currency is eroded. US national debt? Now some $17.5 trillion, which will never be returned, and yes, ultimately one of the loaners - be it China or someone else - will ultimately get wise with horrific consequences across the globe.
Krugman's conclusion:
"Whatever the reasons basic economics got tossed aside, the result has been tragic. Most of the waste and suffering that have afflicted Western economies these past five years was unnecessary. We have, all along, had the knowledge and the tools to restore full employment. But policy makers just keep finding reasons not to do the right thing."
Full employment? My guess is that it's a thing of the past. For better or worse, we've entered an age when a handful of geniuses armed with powerful computers can do the work of an army of mediocre personnel, and nowhere is this more obvious than in . . . biotechnology and medical devices.
How will society cope with perpetually higher rates of unemployment? No one knows for sure, but you might want to have another look at Huxley's "Brave New World."
My guess is that it's not going to be pretty.
