Is economics the biggest meme field there is? There isn't a single macroeconomic theory that is undisputedly supported by empirical evidence
Is economics the biggest meme field there is?
Is economics the biggest meme field there is? There isn't a single macroeconomic theory that is undisputedly supported by empirical evidence
dark matter isn't supported by any evidence either, neither is covid. theres massive amounts of fake and gay bullshit all over science, thats just how science is done ever since israelites took over academia
checks out. have you considered gender-affirmation?
https://rumble.com/v40xuel-going-the-distance-with-doctor-faustus-final-cut.html
Nothing meme about it. It's objectively true that a free market is the optimal way to organize society.
The only confusion is caused by governments deliberately muddying the waters to conceal their market interference are the causes of our woes. E.g confusing price rises with inflation obfuscating that money printing is the problem.
>t. morons who haven't studied economics
>>t. morons who haven't studied economics
I dont need to because i know all of ecomomics.
You make a service or product and then exchange it for other service or products.
Thats all that economics is. Most people are not aware of this simple fact, they think the economy is "money from the government stash"
Economics is extremely simple:
You make a product or service and then barter it for other goods and services.
All of finance is a glorified barter system.
A million theories of money are just barter systems.
Economic policy is just ways to easy producing and bartering.
The factual reality is most people just dont see economic prosperity as their first concern, thinking that other things like love or their culture are just as important. But that isnt a problems of economics as a theoretical field, people can do what they want, people suffer even when they dont have to.
Theft also exists, but you can just think about it as just another industry, same with all illegal activities like the drug trade, its illegal but still an economic sector. The government is also seen as just another economic sector.
Everything i wrote is the universal truth and applies to all economies in all eras and places
>mfw its right
It's an excuse to have extra employment in a society. Work can be reorganized and shortened to make more productivity and require less human involvement, but you would have to kill some poor people.
krugman is right, they created gdp as entertainment
however they have to pay vat and income tax on those 40K
Central planning is objectively superior to market economies. Remove egalitarianism from it and it's obviously the most IQfy system. No asymmetry and the resources can go toward super projects and the state can assure good living standards as opposed to capitalism where even the richest countries have massive amounts of people living in total squalor and that's tolerated as being ok.
Central planning doesnt mean that an economy will be well run or that it will be attempted to be run for the benefit of the common people.
Yes digital central economy is the way. Look at Amazon and big companies. They themselves are giant Computer driven Monoliths that don't have any capitalistic/free market system. So if they can do it why not we the people. The government won't do it but we could try at least.
How do you ensure that the central planner actually makes good and correct decisions for the allocation of resources?
By means of a nation wide lottery drawing from people who test over 158 IQ.
>By means of a nation wide lottery drawing from people who test over 158 IQ.
Power just doesnt work like that.
>Central planning can done independent of communist and Marxist ideology,
Dubai and Singapour were terraformed by authoritarian leaders, the thing is it all depends on the personality of one person, when that good leader dies you can get chaos. Tons of countries with strongmen are shitholes.
Just do what we do now and have the media give positive messaging constantly.
Hell it doesn't even need to be coherent just look at China, totally untrained average IQ shits can do it as long as the people think they can. Stop worrying about shit like math or np-hard calculation problems, that just makes you look incompetent.
lol look at this cummie thinking against all odds that the central power isn't corrupt.
Central planning can done independent of communist and Marxist ideology, even implemented by a regime unilaterally opposed to them. If taken to its logical extreme, society would be more hierarchical than it is under capitalism.
Central planning doesn't guarantee that the round table knows better how to use money better than incentive driven individuals. Central planning will definitely eat itself and will never blame itself for incompetence. Any economic system on planet earth, other than free market economy, can't fix itself when it will fail.
Central planning is the early-stage to a full-blown censorship state.
Your reasoning is based only homosexual emotions and endorsed by some stupid philosophy that won't work in reality. Only free market economy is proven to be the compatible with the very essence of human nature. Anything other than this will fail miserably
Only I can become a successful central planner and I guarantee I would kill 90% of you without thinking twice.
obvious bait you morons
It's not bait. Your brain is just too smooth to conceive of it.
the problem with economics is that econs don't know differential geometry
What ever happened to Eric? He disappeared after he tried unifying physics. Getting ignored and laughed at didn't stop Wolfram.
Thread full of clowns. Economics isn't just socialism vs free market. Some of the most fundamental and influential theories are either created on unreasonable assumptions (e.g. perfect competition, purchasing power parity) or are not backed up strongly by evidence (financial development leading growth etc.). Imagine if 60% of papers testing Hooke's law found that it holds and 40% found it doesn't, depending on the dataset and statistical model used. Joke of a field
When I'm on stocks I'd like to think it's cause I'm smart not just a degen gambler.
The gulf between what IQfy thinks a quant looks like and what it actually looks like is quite incredible. (I will have a look at some of those books)
only noobs don't know what a scientist looks like
good books. definitely help.
I'm literally a professional options trader and we use black scholes. Bunch of IQfy nerds think they can beat IQfy at making money by reading books lol
Prove black schools are the most effective economy.
All sciences that study humans have failed to produce predictions that can been confirmed.
Sciences that study the physical world external to humans succeed because variables can be controlled and changed; predictions for when one variable is changed and the others controlled can be tested and proven to be true or false. This is most true for physics but also chemistry, biology and all the overlapping areas of science like geology or geophysics ect...
For psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, the object of study are human beings and human activity. It is neither feasible nor moral to control all the different variables that influence human behaviour.
Because a large part of human behavior is random. A person's likes and motivations only make certain actions more likely, but they don't absolutely rule anything out. A person can do anything at any time, and they're not guaranteed to make an obviously correct choice even when it's the only positive option. Multiply that by eight billion people and you get the world. It's shocking that there have been enough people throughout history who were productive enough to build what we have today to accommodate everyone else's madness.
Even a perfectly rational actor faces intractable decision computations every day and might not even be aware of the form of the expression for evaluating their own desires.
The only remotely accurate sciences around human behavior rely on essentially special cases where the decision theory is so reduced as to have statistically significant patterns. That said, these special cases do seem to have very strong predictive power, if they could be translated to the real world without some moronic combinatorial explosions
Why do these fields even continue? Are the researchers just stuck in a sunk cost mindset?
What makes anyone think that economics is some science meant to predict the purchases of some random person in the future? Theres not determinism in economics, but short term trends are obvious.
Its trivial to know what the demand for shoes will be next year, it will be just like in current year, with some tony variation due to demographic changes that are easy to calculate in the short term. You dont need more accuracy than that.
Moreso, theres no reason to expect economics to be some clone of physics but for the world of production and consumption, same as you dont expect political science to be able to predict the name of the president of the united states in the year 2150. In my opinion economics isnt a science, and its stupid to judge it as as science and then calling it shitty because it doesnt look like physics.
The only real problem in economics is lack of data, theres no theoretical problems in economics. Its just that no one knows whats actually going on in the world, its not like astronomy where you can take a look at the universe with a telescope. How can you know what companies or people are doing? Its impossible except for voluntary surveys or with information that some ZOG-aligned governments ask like a legal requirement to register companies and pay taxes. Banks probably know the most as the transactions go through them.
>its not like astronomy where you can take a look at the universe with a telescope
Thats a bad example, astronomers presume that 95% of the universe is made of """dark matter"" despite not being able to observe it.
>short term trends are obvious
you've literally got that backwards, all economists resort to 'muh long term' or 'muh shocks' when they fail to find evidence for their theory
>you've literally got that backwards, all economists resort to 'muh long term' or 'muh shocks' when they fail to find evidence for their theory
Some long terms are obvious, keyword "some". Same as short terms. Its all based on common sense without some unifying theory.
Economics isnt physics and isnt "bad" for not being physics.
People lob moronic criticisms at economics like it cant predict what some person is going to buy at a store some day. As if that was ever claimed or the point of economics.
Economics is the dogma of the simplest form of life on earth, bacterium, and of nonsentient natural phenomena like exothermic chemical reactions, and the dogma of psychotic math-illiterate banking ponzi schemers.
Consume. Multiply.
Consume and multiply like bacteria, drown in your own waste like bacteria.
We're doomed as a species if we can't reign in these creatures.
You just need to understand that despite their mathematics handwaving tricks, it's still a social science. It's both descriptive and proscriptive.
There is certainly a lot of hand waving in it. I suspect done on purpose to keep the goyim clueless as to what ~~*they*~~ are actually doing
I mean it´s social sciences the standards by the nature of social or what people call "soft" sciences are low,it´s the way,but by no means useless and worthless.
For you question take the Adam Smith writings to the core of economics or can listen to teachers or just do the common sense and analyze people behaving in a economic way.
McDonalds or shopping or markets, the same behavior.
You haven't read Adam Smith's book
Because economics isn't exact science. You cannot use digits to prove economical theories. You can only assume what is the most possible scenario in specific situations.
successful planned economies like that of Singapore or South Korea are not opposed to the free market, what they have is quite simply state capitalism and large monopolies headed by powerful families that can plan the overall structure of the country. Its a committee of 300 type of situation.
Companies like Samsung or Mitsubishi or Siemens can make a country, tens of thousands of other companies will appear to serve them. Its still private capital, with market pricing and theres still the element of competition.
You cant just expect that some shithole will spontaneously develop industry hubs without planning at the highest levels to arrange for the capital, infrastructure, laws and trade deals that must fit in to make it possible.
Its much easier to create another company in countries that already have industrial hubs, as the potential customers and suppliers are in place, as well as a body of scientists and engineers and managers that can be recruited
It was the same in the USA, you had a dozen or so notable families like Dupont or Rockefeller that developed the USA, without them the country would be just a patchwork of small farms.
Thankfully macro isn't all there is to it.
Micro = strong
Finance = strong
Macro = meh
International = alright I guess
Heterodox econ = trash