I just completed a Bachelor's of "Science" in Economics, and I learned nothing; I learned nothing about past economies, I learned nothing about why they fail, I learned nothing about current economies; literally nothing about economics. All I learned is a bunch of math being (ab)used to make shitty models, which never agree with reality. Three fricking years, that's all we did. Just pointless math after math, that also only shitty high school calculus. And it just gets worse in masters, where they somehow manage to add complex numbers in analysing a market. Frick these failed mathematicians. There is no economics in an economics degree.
Now I want to switch to a master's in a field that actually applies math (like Statistics or theoretical CS), but the only university in my country that allows those with B in economics, accepts only like 9 people in a year. Don't study academic Economics, it's true what they say about it just being completely made up shit. At least pure mathematicians don't pretend they're doing it for anything other than recreation, and even then whatever they come up with always have some application somewhere. Those pursuing PhD in Economics should not be given grants, it's an absolute waste of taxpayer's money.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Are you moronic. The entire point of Economics is to learn how to make money for people with money. You, a peasant are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to possibly make yourself money by making those with money more money. What could you have possibly thought economics was
Economics does not help with that either actually. Though I supposed the elective finance courses could have done that a bit, if I had picked them.
Well I just googled, what is done with economics degree, and there seems to be options
>The entire point of Economics is to learn how to make money for people with money
Wrong, most economics jobs are research and analysis. You're closer to an academic than to Gordon Gecko. You're doing economics to study the economy, not make money. They should've called the field ecology but ecologists claimed the name for themselves.
Grad school pays you
delusional take, kys within the our pls
Finance grad here. Economists don't make money, they are used to justify decisions by people who do.
>nooo QE is fine! Adam Smith is outdated!
Yup, my conclusion after exploring economics education was that the entire field is fraudulent. It's one of the biggest scams in science, right up there with psychology and sociology.
>I just completed a Bachelor's of "Science" in Economics, and I learned nothing; I learned nothing about past economies, I learned nothing about why they fail, I learned nothing about current economies; literally nothing about economics
Sucks you guys don't have an Olavo de Carvalho to teach you how to be intelligent and become an intellectual. All the shit you said you didn't learn you could have if you follow your own autodidactic education.
It's really simple, just the first 2 volumes of the great books of the western world (1st edition obviously), read the subjects that interest you and get more books in the recommended reading section
I don't know what the frick you are on about, but I am specifically talking about how the whole academia behind Economics is just a bunch of dudes flexing their math skills; whether I learn on my own or not is irrelevant. The main point is fraud fields like Economics should not be funded unless they changed.
>Bachelor's
That's why I mentioned it gets worse in Master's where they add even more math. If anything, Bachelor's is the one where it at least somewhat resembles Economics.
>simple models, perfect outcome
Yeah, that's what I was telling myself over the past three years. Even if that is true, that should only be a small part, even an elective, of Economics, not the main thing. Also, how do you expect to make any useful models if you don't actually study about historic or present economies. We were never taught about the South Sea Bubble; we were never taught the sequence that led to aggregate demand so low during the Great Depression in the first place. Also, funny you mention Keynes, because Keynes and pretty much every big name Economist who ever achieved something used very little math.
>we're doing different things in grad school
No, you're abusing even more shitty math from what I've seen. My beef is with entire Economics Academia. You know it yourself, none of what you do is ever going to be used for anything.
>muh Econophysics
Fricking delusional frauds
>too much math, too little economics
That might depend on the specific grad school you go to. When I did my grad courses, a lot of it was replicating papers, writing referee reports, and doing your own research. It's much more hands-on as you go forward. You're answering real questions with real data rather than just solving math problems with little context. I had courses on things like economic history and economic institutions during undergrad, so that might be a problem with your particular university.
>Keynes and math
I used neo-keynesian models as an example because that's the first thing that came to mind. The model is neo-keynesian in the sense that it explains why supply and demand can be out of equilibrium but it's otherwise different from the original idea described by Keynes. Also while it's true some economics can be done without math, modern economics from the past 50 years is very different from the political economy of the time of Keynes. Look at the people getting Nobel Prizes and the most cited papers. It's a quantitative field and we need to reflect that in our teaching. But as I said we don't need to neglect that a lot of economics is storytelling either. You still need to use common sense to figure out if the story your model tells makes sense. It's something not all people do, though that's not a problem unique to economics. I've seen terrible papers with "sensible" math but nonsensical conclusions in physics and medicine too (in fact we've sometimes used papers from these fields as examples for things not do in my statistics classes). There's too little philosophy in science, and there's especially too little philosophy in economics. I agree with you on that.
>I don't know what the frick you are on about, but I am specifically talking about how the whole academia behind Economics is just a bunch of dudes flexing their math skills; whether I learn on my own or not is irrelevant. The main point is fraud fields like Economics should not be funded unless they changed.
Ok great, now go complain about that to your department of economics and get back to us with their reply. Or even better, send an email to all the economics universities in the world and see what they reply with.
>just the first 2 volumes of the great books of the western world
None of that shit is up to date or relevant. The brits loved to read greek classics because they fetishized ancient greece, they all got rich on selling sugar, cotton and tobacco from slave plantations, the greek literature was a cope to be presentable in society
>None of that shit is up to date or relevant. The brits loved to read greek classics because they fetishized ancient greece, they all got rich on selling sugar, cotton and tobacco from slave plantations, the greek literature was a cope to be presentable in society
I can tell you're a subhuman who has no idea what you're talking about
Stop pretending. The so called "classical education" you fetishize is just reading homer and a bunch of obsolete greek shit no one cares. This is useless as training for factory work so dumb kids of slavers think it "teaches them how to think, not what to think".
Also no one gives a frick about about some no-name macaco blogger
>Bachelor'
Here's your problem. Your degree is mostly only useful as a stepping stone for grad school where the interesting stuff happens. The problem with most undergrad econ programs is that they focus on breadth over depth. You learn a little about a lot of things, but at the end of the day you're spreading too thin. They'd ideally structure courses with the assumption you're going into grad school (slower, harder, deeper). Unfortunately, they can't do that because that's not the case and they can't afford to be filtering out most people.
>All I learned is a bunch of math being (ab)used to make shitty models, which never agree with reality
In practice, the usefulness in oversimplified models is that you can enhance them with different features to explain why the "perfect" outcome of these models doesn't actually happen in real-life. For example, the standard neo-keynesian model is basically the neoclassical model with heterogeneous monopolistic firms and prices that may randomly not be allowed to change each period. The assumption is that the reason the "perfect" outcome doesn't happen is because of market power and prices not being able to move in the short term. Comparing things to the perfect market benchmark just makes your thinking clearer.
>Just pointless math after math
Personally, I think there's not enough math in undergrad econ in the sense that many people enter grad school and then need to play catch up in that regard. At the same time, I agree that there's too much math in undergrad econ in the sense that economics is in practice closer to philosophy and rhetoric than physics and more focus should therefore be put on good thinking and good communication. Lots of people are good at math but terrible at thinking.
>Those pursuing PhD in Economics should not be given grants, it's an absolute waste of taxpayer's money
Your beef is with undergrad economics, we're doing different things in grad school
>Sure, my first piece of paper didn't teach you anything, but that's because you need to buy the next level!
>Your beef is with undergrad economics, we're doing different things in grad school
Oh yes, you have been destroying the econony of countries
https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-modern-monetary-theory-experiment-could-be-an-untamed-demon-economist-77719/
>MMT
MMT is a meme
>MMT is a meme
A meme that economists behind policies seem to be very adept of
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-08/high-u-s-inflation-shows-flaw-of-modern-monetary-theory
I'm telling you I haven't heard of MMT outside of the internet and of columns making fun of it. It's a literal meme.
Its another term for quantitative easing which is another term for money printing. Pure pilpul
moron they dont have any foreign reserves that has nothing to do at all with their internal economics dalit moronation. They dont have any oil and dont grow any grain, then the price of oil and grain triples OOPS we are fricked.
They were always fricked but they patched their deficits with loans, they debtmaxxed and reached zero income so they are too fricked for more loans. They were never going to make it.
Expenses>Income=Fricked. You dont need a PhD to understand that
> I learned nothing about why they fail,
temple of juno moneta, usery, inflation, judaism
moron
Elaborate.
I got my B.S. in economics and it sounds like I learned more than you did.
But, anyway, it is not too late. You can learn everything you want for free using the internet. It is all there.
>You can learn everything you want for free using the internet. It is all there.
Demonstrating how little it will profit you.
You can learn any subject off the internet. All of human knowledge is available for free. You can learn to code off the internet and get a lucrative career.
Some of it will profit you.
L
How much Marxism do you learn in an Economics major?
Little or none in undergrad. In master's there may be a few electives.
They teach it in economic history. If you let on you actually believe in such nonsense, you'll get laughed out of the room
>implying macro isn't the biggest scam out there
Literally everything is bullshit or dogma...
None
None whatsoever
Modern macro is micro-founded and data-driven. You get testable hypotheses and actionable results. How's that a scam?
It's not false. We use math as a way to precisely communicate our ideas. Do you have a better way to describe the standard econ approach?
What does Adam Smith say about the zero lower bound?
>our ideas
Exactly. You ideas, not real world problems.
>You're questioning a fraudulent course structure? Must be a moron.
OP, you dont know shit about Econ. Did you actually learn anything? At its purest, Econ is about causal relationships, and the best example is causal inference using natural experiment or quasi-experimental means. Econometrics, real analysis, etc. are the lifeblood of Econ and any good research can appreciate.
For theory, Econ is about abstracting a real world problem into math, and solving the problem in math. Empirically, it's described above using about only 5 trendy methods (regression discontinuity, differences in differences, etc.)
>I learned nothing about past economies, I learned nothing about why they fail, I learned nothing about current economies; literally nothing about economics
Go take a history class, moron. Econ is a social science in the purest sense of the word, a science with rigorous methods first and the application to something in society second. If you cant deal with empiricism you need to go have a nice day
/t.econ PhD candidate (empiricist)
>Econ is about abstracting a real world problem into math, and solving the problem in math
Do you actually believe this yourself? Be honest.
Duh. You're supposed to use your econ degree to get a job as an account manager somewhere, and the time at college to have fun.
OP you honestly sound like a moron. Don't bother with theoretical CS at the graduate level. You're not cut out for it.
wait a minute... there are anons on IQfy who did not study mathematics at uni? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
What the hell are you talking about?