/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15194446]

Did anyone here do economics in college? Does it live up to the euphoria of reading about the subject as a layperson?

[Anonymous No.15194457]

No cuz that shit’s gay and can be reduced down to just a small branch of piss-poor Sociology that requires a bit of Calculus

[Anonymous No.15194494]

>>15194446
Hi, I majored in Econ (class of 2013)

Before studying econ I wound up taking some surface level classes at community college and reading a book called "Freakonomics."

In short, the book laid the groundwork for a lot of what I would decide is the more important aspect of Economics- the math and social aspect of it. Unfortunately, most people who discuss "pop econ" approach it from a political perspective which makes it drier and more boring than the broad applications it's actually capable of. See, it's too politicized nowadays to actually do very much interesting stuff with it because single-minded retards are going to use any application of it to apply to their agenda.

In short, try to avoid macro-based books and focus on the statistical/mathematical angle and you will enjoy most of the books. If you are political and want to pick up and econ book to support whatever ideology you have you're interested in the wrong school of economics.

[Anonymous No.15194629]

>>15194494
Thank you. To be more specific, I'm a freshman in a vaguely top business undergrad program (ranked 10-15). It's the most soul sucking stuff in the universe, it's like 4 years of trade school to become someone from The Office. I'm thinking of transferring to the Economics department, but by changing from the business to Arts & Science school I'll drop one of my scholarships, and our econ department is just 'fine', not ever mentioned in discussions of the great schools.
I've been curious about economics for a while, enjoyed my micro-econ class, and am loving books like what I posted in the OP (though I'm skeptical and interested in testing some of the claims that it glosses over). I feel like I'll be happier there but obviously I'll be paying more and probably sacrificing a lot of job security. I'm not sure what to do.

[Anonymous No.15194941]

>>15194629
Do Finance and learn to code, you can make like $100k making BS reports for out of touch boomers or if you want to be a master of the universe you can get an MBA and do corporate structuring and finance. You still get to study economics but the application will be more ubiquitous and direct. Econ as policy advice relies on a handful of elite positions throughout the USA.

I'm going to level with you, nothing lucrative is ever fun and vice versa. What makes careers fun is the culture developed around the business. In that end you should get some fancy quals and settle down in a career that's not toxic. I wish I had learned earlier that a lot of the draw to some careers is an imaginary aesthetic sold to impressionable bright-but-not-wise students to get you trapped in a lifestyle you can't afford without the business. Avoid these positions at all costs unless you're just starting your career (they can pad your resume to look more intimidating)

[Anonymous No.15195641]

No. Academic economics is pretty boring and requires a lot of math, especially if you’re going into econometrics.

[Anonymous No.15195682]

>>15194446
Introductory economics is all the same, but there are interesting subtopics in economics concerning behavior and history. I'd check out A Farewell to Alms, excellent book showing how the world changed since the industrial revolution and why rich and poor nations continue to diverge and wealth inequality is a natural result.

[Anonymous No.15195728]

I studied economics in undergraduate and briefly in graduate at a large university in the United States. I honestly wouldn’t recommend it but I can try to answer questions if you have any.

[Anonymous No.15195798]

>>15194446
Pop econ has nothing in common with the real study of economics. Economics is closer to applied math than many people think. Logical fields are developed and compared to reality, along with social theory and capital theory, interest theory, price theory, etc. Anybody that says economics "is" this or that, or that there is a "truth" in economics is a charlatan. Economic theory itself may be implemented by governments and change society. Its a way to describe the activity of time management, exchange, and commerce, but many economists have disagreed with each other, and for what it's worth, none of them are "right." Don't fall into that trap. A "correct" theory of political economy may have been correct for a certain time and place, but not always. All of this is to say that you should read actual undergrad textbooks, not this pop econ shit. Also, read A Concise History of Economic Thought by Vaggi and Groenewegen.

[Anonymous No.15195821]

>>15194446
>supply and demand for dummies
>euphoria
you must be such an interesting and engaging person op

[Anonymous No.15195838]

>>15194446
Fuck no. One terrible economics class just about destroyed my interest in the subject.

[Anonymous No.15195870]

You need to like (love) math for it to live up to that 'euphoria'. The vast majority of the revelations you read about in pop econ books are firmly rooted in data/numbers.

[Anonymous No.15195872]

studying economics makes it annoying to read what laypersons say about economics.

[Anonymous No.15195895]

>>15195682

there is a economic textbook that is very readable and interesting called "economic growth" by Weil you can pick up that explains this very well too

[Anonymous No.15195914]

>>15195872

This applies to any area of study, so the statement is vacuous.

[Anonymous No.15195915]

Every single person I knew that studied economics became unable of anything else other than defending libertarian ideals on twitter

[Anonymous No.15195920]

>>15194494
The reality of the situation is you should really read all kinds of books on economics. Everyone has something interesting to say. :3

Except Keynes and Von Mises, they just want to take diametrically opposing viewpoints on everything just to be contrarian assholes.

[Anonymous No.15195975]

>>15195920
I mean, for instance,

I am currently reading Jeremy Bentham's Manual of Political Economy, just finished Oresme's De Moneta, about to start on the English Mint Documents, just finished Hildenbrand's Equilibrium and Core of a Large Economy, currently reading about Systems Theory with Anatol Rapoport's Conflict in Man-Made Environment, and finally I also just ordered Jacob Marschak's Economics, Information, Decision, and Prediction, a pioneering book for econometrics.

I go all over, but it's more fun that way. Don't want to stay too close to one school or philosophy with economics do you? We're not trying to be trendy little hipsters here.

[Anonymous No.15196014]

>>15195914
but everyone seems to think they know economics . look at this board at all the dumb shit people write about economics. Most people in general are financially illiterate

[Anonymous No.15196162]

>>15196014
The sentiment applies in general and not specifically to economics. People hold dumb, uninformed opinions relating to many subjects, not just economics. You just pay more attention to the latter since that's your area of study.

As an example, consider the very stupid things people have been saying and doing lately, related to medicine. C'mon man, people are dumb in general terms and you know that.

[Anonymous No.15196218]

>>15194446
Dude I took a macro and micro economics course and I don’t know how I even passed. I got 98 for micro 86 for macro and like I forgot everything! My brain threw everything out because of how I stressed over it.

Macroeconomic was the harder one. The only thing I remember about that course that if potential GDP was higher than actual GDP it was recession but it was opposite it was inflation blah blah. It fried my brain

[Anonymous No.15196484]

>>15194446
I spoke with some graduate econ students and they told me they never read any economic theory or history in undergrad. it is entirely computation and mathematical modeling at this point. "science" is ruining everything interesting

[Anonymous No.15196497]

>>15196484
Then do that on your own fuckwad. This is exactly why NO DISCIPLINE should be obsessed with the shithole that is academia at this point, even science.

The path of autodidactism is just so much better. And if you read books published by Yale or Princeton Press, you are basically going to an Ivy League college anyway, ffs.

[Anonymous No.15196564]

>>15196497

> Then do that on your own fuckwad

Notice, I was not the econ major in the story.

> if you read books published by Yale or Princeton Press,

Yet you still seem to hold these institutions in high esteem?

[Anonymous No.15196572]

>>15196484

Related to this, I was listening to some radio program (I think) a few years ago, or I consumed some media that was discussing economics education. According to the speaker, most economics departments don't spend much time on history of economics (or: don't require a course on it for the major), which is (according to him) a bad thing, but such-and-such university does require some time spent on the subject, which again is a good thing according to same.

It makes one wonder whether or to what extent the history of X is appropriate to other science majors (assuming for polite discussion that econ is a science, or is related, I'm happy to grant the latter at least since it deals with numbers and tries to describe/explain/predict phenomena). I have a strong personal interest in history of math but apart from periodic biographical blurbs and odd anecdotal stories my math major didn't require same, for example (b/c it's deemed irrelevant, and much the same attitude presumably holds for econ and others).

[Anonymous No.15196640]

>>15196572

This is certainly an interesting question, but I think its more relevant for science and math, where the history is perhaps more supplementary to understanding the subject.

With economics, the entire core of the subject matter is philosophical questions about human action, how societies develop, what "efficiency is", combined with practical historical information. What happened to this country? How did people deal with this situation, etc.

By focusing the education on how to calculate GDP, or aggregate demand, or whatever the fuck they do, it entirely misses the point of the subject.

[Anonymous No.15196653]

>>15196564
>Yet you still seem to hold these institutions in high esteem?
I have read a few of their books, yes. The ones in the 60s and 70s were decent. (the PSME - Princeton Studies in Mathematics and Economics).

It's certainly not all I read, though.

[Anonymous No.15196656]

>>15196014
Nobody in real life cares about economics. Your average joe doesn’t give a shit about economics, they only care about they every day finances.

Economics is not accounting!

[Anonymous No.15196660]

>>15195728
Not the OP but how is it? Im mostly interested in economic theory than the maths and shit

[Anonymous No.15196666]

>>15196656

De te fabula narratur.

[Anonymous No.15196678]

>>15196640
In "Liar's Poker" Michael Lewis describes the 80s and after economics degree as a competency tests for financial institution hiring.

- The specific calculations you learn aren't very useful, so you can't leverage them into a useful job.
- You are self-selecting as a person who wants money instead of studying something interesting.
- It uses just enough math to act as an IQ test.

[Anonymous No.15196690]

>>15196666
They don’t though. Most don’t. Most don’t even understand what economics really is.

Saying how much taxes do I need to pay is not economics. That falls within accounting.

[Anonymous No.15196722]

>>15194446
Most of it is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15196736]

>>15196722
Literally no economics is like that though.

>>15196690
Yeah man, I feel your pain. To the point where my copy of Progress and Poverty has a bunch of dollar signs on it... I mean... seriously?!

[Anonymous No.15196773]

>>15196678
This was my experience honestly. The only thing I’d at is that I personally did it because I had pretty much given up on finding the right major and because economics seemed like a relatively safe and employable way of approaching philosophy and politics. I got fooled into thinking I’d get the latter once I reached my upper level courses, but that wasn’t the case.

[Anonymous No.15196787]

>>15196484
Pretty true but the funny part is it’s not even enough of that. Many graduate programs will not admit economics undergrads because they don’t have nearly enough mathematics under their belt.

[Anonymous No.15196960]

>>15196722
Economics does not autistically formulate math and try to apply it to behavior. It goes the exact opposite way. Behavior is observed and mathematical models are created to try to model or explain it, along with theory. But I suppose you would know more than a guy with an economics degree because you read a snarky comic.

[Anonymous No.15197079]

>>15195915
yeah, because we know people can make their own decisions.

[Anonymous No.15197086]

>>15194446
ITT: Economists meet angry stupid commies.

[Anonymous No.15197088]

>>15196722
>>15196960
give him a break. He is only at step 2:

>>15196564

[Anonymous No.15197136]

>>15196564
>>15197088
Really, that's just Game Theory though, which is a part of economics, I guess, but yeah that last panel describes Game Theory to a Tee.

I think of efficient behavior as something that people in pressurized positions 'loosely' base their behavior off of.

[Anonymous No.15197283]

>>15197086

Actually the thread has been more-or-less sensible discussion thus far, with some snipes which haven't derailed things. I'm surprised that it hasn't been deleted as the mods here have a tendency to delete threads with constructive /lit/ related discussion along with other nonsense, and it's well worth breaking whatever rule to point that out.

But anyway, to make the thread tangentially /lit/ related. I just finished an early edition of Weath of Nations and I understand that later editions are about twice as long and I'd like to get after the other material. I'm wondering if any anons can point me to helpful, detailed resourecs on the differences between the editions.

[Anonymous No.15197795]

>>15197283
I think my Prof said that the Cannon (Canon? Cannen?) edition has annotations that point out when a section that goes nowhere, effectively highlighting the most important parts of the book

[Anonymous No.15197948]

>>15194446
Graduated in 2018, took the hardest math-based electives my university offered

I thought it was pretty basic/underwhelming until I got a glimpse of what post-grad would be like in my last semester. Amazing shit, but I couldn't justify spending another 4-8 years essentially becoming a mathematician to maybe make 30K more per year. If I had family money its the only thing worth studying.

I'm technically an "economist" per my job title, but I'm not even close. I essentially add stuff together in Excel and tell other departments that their ideas are dumb based on Micro 101.

[Anonymous No.15197985]

>>15195895
Most non-intro econ textbooks are great reads. It's definitely self-study-able if you have taken some basic calc

[Anonymous No.15198025]

>>15196960
>Economics does not autistically formulate math and try to apply it to behavior
Yes, it does. See pic related.

[Anonymous No.15198027]

>>15196660
The maths and shit are the theory. They are not separate. I was able to get my undergrad with only Calc 2, but my econ department taught the linear algebra and difeq as needed within the upper level classes

If I wanted to pursue a doctorate, my advisor said I'd be spending a few semesters in the math department for re-education

[Anonymous No.15198098]

>>15194629
My experience talking to recruiters as a BA Econ major because our business school dropped Econ circa 2017:

>Are you an Finance major?
>Econ actually
>Oh, I didn't know <business school> had an Econ program
>They don't, I'm a B.A.
>*awkward silence*

If you're in the US, the only people who hire undergrad Econ BA's are government, and there are more Econ BA's than there are cushy Federal gigs

Stick with Finance unless you know 100% you're getting a doctorate in Econ

[Anonymous No.15198150]

>>15197948

Everyone in business adds stuff together in Excel. The other day I taught my immediate superior ctrl+F and how to use the mouse wheel to increase or decrease size, she was visibly delighted.

[Anonymous No.15198223]

>>15198098

You misunderstand the purpose of education as being to get a job with which to make money, a usual modern error. This is an incidental and vulgar end. The point of education is to learn things and to get the joke.

[Anonymous No.15198248]

>>15198223
Which makes it all the more absurd to waste 4 years studying (((Economics))).

[Anonymous No.15198350]

>>15194446
I'm majoring in economics and more and more I feel like its just bs pseudoscience. None of the actual theories and shit youre learning apply to actual business (which most econ majors want to do as a career). I feel like I'm just mesmerizing and spitting out formulas for hypothetical scenarios that will never exist

[Anonymous No.15198393]

>>15194446
I majored in econ at a well ranked liberal arts college. I didn't get a job after graduation so I went and got a master's in accountancy. Econ class was nothing like reading pop-economics books.

[Anonymous No.15198716]

>>15198223
I double majored in History to fulfill my intellectual pursuits.

I enjoy not living with my parents and eating, and I only have my Econ degree to thank for that

[Anonymous No.15198733]

>>15198350
If you're a Junior or Senior, you shouldn't be memorizing any formulas, you should be learning how to solve models and understanding the effects of changing parameters has on the outcomes

[Anonymous No.15199092]

OP here. What I'm hearing is, economics degree will not solve my issue with business degree, that being, a lack of intellectual fulfillment. It's so frustrating. All my friends are doing stuff like physics and linguistics and psychology, and they're SATISFIED by they're school work. They're EXCITED to go to class! I was not excited for class one time this semester except for micro-econ. I even took Creative Writing and Literature because I thought I liked that stuff but it didn't do much for me. My CW output was minimal.
I feel like I'm about to let the next three years of my life, a one time experience, be wasted by a miserable undergraduate program. And yet I see no alternative.

[Anonymous No.15199670]

>>15199092
same boat (business student) but i'm a junior. feels like i haven't learned anything. thankfully i'm interning this summer but if i end up hating what i do i'll consider roping.

[Anonymous No.15200055]

>>15196484
you sound like a pseud who can't into math butthurt that your vague hand-waving and grand unfalsifiable theories aren't respected.

[Anonymous No.15200162]

>>15195915
That's because libertarianism is the only sane fucking answer in the sea of NEETsoc /pol/tards and leftist useful idiots trying to sell you something. It's also the logical conclusion after taking economics, which is in of itself a pseudoscience. Being a lolberg is the true third position, because you can actually be productive and have basic human fucking rights at the same time.

[Anonymous No.15200217]

>>15200162
Yes, but then you find out that Lolberts can be easily manipulated by corporations.

[Anonymous No.15200228]

>>15200217
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.15200236]

>>15198098
What if I'm going to an Ivy? I want to pursue a PhD in Econ but I also want to work for a few years first, hopefully in consulting, to pay off debt.

[Anonymous No.15200284]

>>15200217
Corporations only have power when the government grants them that power through artificial monopolies and economic strangulation. Trust busting is one of the most important jobs the government has, second to ensuring a functioning judicial system for the guarantee of property rights. Just because we live in the Neo-Gilded Age doesn't mean that things have always been this way. America had a brief golden age after the Progressive Era and before Great Dictator came along.
What I am proposing has not only been tried, but has produced the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. It's never been perfect, there was always some problems from the onset of it all, but expecting perfection in any framework is utopian nonsense that you would expect from the average Hitler Youth. The United States prospered for well over 100 years before we started having problems with government strangulation across the board, and even then, we managed to recover by the end of the Gilded Age. The real problem, and the ultimate source of the vast majority of our problems today started because of the "standard bearer of liberalism," Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man literally and figuratively worse than Hitler, and the worst president in the history of the US. He abused his executive power, and the powers of propaganda through radio and public posters to brainwash people into thinking the federal government is a supreme being that is supposed to take care of everyone. Who were you to argue with the guy who was "fighting the good fight" during World War 2? He is responsible for extending the Great Depression by over a decade, the National Firearms Act which was a direct attempt and a successful one at that to disarm the American people, endless red tape and socialism as not only a proposal but a reality in this country, and much more. He loved to firebomb civilians, he lied about his polio for years, he took people's gold by FORCE, he destroyed food and supplies domestically hoping it would "drive the value up" when there were people starving to death in the streets, and he manipulated the emotions of a generations by pretending to be their friend in their living room when he talked softly about all the great programs he was implementing.
Even in the 1920s, we understood that if we wanted to place federal restrictions on something as sacred as property, we had to use a constitutional amendment. We did it with alcohol, we did it with slaves, but somehow, since FDR, we have deluded the voting population into thinking that this kind of tyranny is not only acceptable, but is normal, and it's all FDR's fault. But don't take my word for it, talk to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans, anyone who spoke their language including whites, who were thrown into camps, and being told all the while that they have "rights." Even if you strive to prevent it at the onset of your agenda, these things can and WILL come to pass if you give them the power to do it.

[Anonymous No.15200364]

>>15196660
Like I said in my post, I honestly wouldn’t recommend it. I most of all just don’t think it’s actually a field worth pursuing academically right now and I have a pretty negative view of college in general but even if you remain interested in graduate level study and research in economics, particularly the mathematical stuff, you’d be at a severe disadvantage actually studying economics in undergraduate. There’s not nearly enough math in an economics program to prepare you and what you learn is actually of very little benefit.
>>15198027
and
>>15198350
are seriously the most common experiences. I’ve seriously come to think it’s actually the worst major/field one could choose.

[Anonymous No.15200369]

>>15199670
Just switch now or drop out. You’ll regret it if you don’t.

[Anonymous No.15200381]

>>15200236
You’d get a job if you have any econ degree from an Ivy but you’d most definitely hate it and would find it near impossible to get into a PhD program.

[Anonymous No.15200648]

>>15200369
i'm in too deep at this point. i'll slave away for a little bit to get my financials in order and then proceed from there.

[Anonymous No.15200727]

>>15200648
I was in your shoes so I speak from experience but you do what you think is best.

[Anonymous No.15201361]

>>15200236
I have no idea, I went to a top 10 public school and that was still my experience

Generally an Ivy degree in anything is better than a public school degree for flexibility (art history majors wind up working at the DOD somehow), but my department specifically doesn't hire them because they aren't a good fit for the boring and arbitrary nature of the work. They quickly get burnt out and have meltdowns

[Anonymous No.15201411]

>>15198716

Interesting. You believe yourself to have refuted the post you replied to by doubling down on "Muh Practical Economic Necessity".

[Anonymous No.15201527]

>>15200727
what'd you do? how's it working out?

[Anonymous No.15201810]

>>15201527
I graduated with an economics degree. I don’t make much money and my loans are pretty suffocating. I live paycheck to paycheck but I get by. I’m not doing so horrible or anything just didn’t really get anything out of finishing the degree and I regret it even more so because I hated it so much.

[Anonymous No.15202095]

>>15200284

[Anonymous No.15202120]

>>15200055
you sound like a pseud with no theoretical generative ability

[Anonymous No.15202130]

>>15200284
>when the government grants them that power through artificial monopolies
this meme again

[Anonymous No.15202154]

>>15200284
Could it be that with enough freedom corporations manage to become even more powerful that states?

Hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.15202361]

>>15202130
Not an argument.
>>15202154
>I did not actually read the argument

[Anonymous No.15202791]

>>15195975
Do you have a decent chart for this? Or a syllabus? I feel like /lit/'s chart on econ books is babby tier

[Anonymous No.15203044]

>>15202361
>not an argument
boring, back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15203065]

>>15203044
I don't post on /pol/. Regardless, it's still not an argument. Refute me or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15203146]

>>15203065
I didn't try to refute it, I posted what's actually happening. Corporations become bigger and more powerful than states.

[Anonymous No.15203165]

>>15203146
>Corporations become bigger and more powerful than states.
because of the government granting them that power through artificial monopolies

[Anonymous No.15203195]

>>15203165
You can't 'give' power to something else, the act of giving means that you're the one who has it. Power relationship don't work like you think, your argument is flawed. If corporations become more powerful than states, it's due to struggle and overcoming, not magically conceded like a Genki Dama.

[Anonymous No.15203253]

>>15203195
>You can't 'give' power to something else
You can because corporations and the government do not play by the same rules. Corporations operate off of profit while the government operates on force. If you operate under the conventional metric where might makes right, you fucking Indians, the government has that might. If you don't believe me, look at the federal reserve. Now quit being a dick swallowing bootlicker for five minutes and apologise.

[Anonymous No.15203303]

>>15200162
Libertarians are a minority among professional economists. Most internet libertarians have a very limited understanding of actual economics.

[Anonymous No.15203304]

>>15203253
Would you say someone with a gun is more powerful than Rockefeller on his wheelchair?

[Anonymous No.15203308]

>>15203195
lol this much cope. If the government says that no new businesses can be created and bails out the big corporations when they fail they are 100% enabling monopoly. This isn't a "magical concession" either, it's a single person with too much power who becomes a point of failure when corrupted.

[Anonymous No.15203315]

>>15200284
>market power only comes from government intervention!
t. has never taken an economics course

[Anonymous No.15203322]

>>15203303
How do you define professional? Most of the Econ undergraduates I met in uni were libertarian

[Anonymous No.15203325]

>>15203303
It depends on which part of the market the said "professional economist" is in. Most people's personal philosophy will be consistent with their career choice, meaning governmental economists will be in favor of governmental economics. Since "professional economist" is usually a political or policy advisor they adopt whatever school of thought is likely to embolden their actions.

[Anonymous No.15203334]

>>15203303
"Actual economics" is pure pseudoscience.
>>15203304
Provided they can successfully kill him without getting found out, yes. However, this time and time again appears to be quite the daunting task.

[Anonymous No.15203343]

>>15203322
Same here, but many were politician-wannabes or pre-law. If all your academic power comes from being pro-big-government you will change your tune eventually

[Anonymous No.15203353]

>>15203334
>>15203304
bad example either way, some guy with a gun doesnt have the right to legitimate violence that the govt has

[Anonymous No.15203357]

I took a couple courses with the "best" professor in the department who literally screamed about "DA FUCKIN REPUBLICANS" to the applause of all students every other class so I switched to Comp Sci

[Anonymous No.15203358]

>>15203334
>"Actual economics" is pure pseudoscience.
Actual economics is econometrics, which is extremely scientific considering it's applied statistics and the scientific method. For instance: price setting as a function of cost inputs and market demand, determining how much to pay people & valuation in general is all very refined.

When people try to predict the future though, it's still all voodoo.

[Anonymous No.15203363]

>>15203357
all my high level instructors were conservative realists. The intro teachers were fucking commies though. Go figure.

[Anonymous No.15203370]

>>15203325
>>15203322
https://econjwatch.org/file_download/625/kleindavishedengrenjan2013.pdf

[Anonymous No.15203395]

>>15203322
Which uni?

[Anonymous No.15203404]

>>15203334
>"Actual economics" is pure pseudoscience.
Let me guess, you believe in austrian economics?

[Anonymous No.15203436]

>>15203358
Actual economics is anything.

I would consider Hayek as much of a scientist as Clive Granger, or John Maynard Keynes (to a less degree here).

It's important to be impartial about this sort of thing, though. What they all aim at is the truth. You shouldn't really take a mathematical bias towards any of this.

Good for you, you are learned/trained in mathematics. So am I. But what this DOESNT do is give us the right to look down on others for not being. And lets be completely honest, someone could have something interesting to say using the english language moreso than someone who is not.

Jeremy Bentham said it best

"Note, that arithmetical expression is throughout but an abridgement of ordinary ditto: algebraical, of arithmetical and ordinary mixed. Note also, that of whatever matter is expressed by arithmetical and algebraical signs, there is not a particle that could not be expressed by the signs employed in ordinary discourse; and note that in this case it would be intelligible, and without effort, to non-mathematical readers at large. And yet, of that stock of information which has been obtained by the use of those signs,-- more especially that most formidable sort, composed of letters of the alphabet, -- it seems clear enough, that not more than a compariatively small part could have been obtained without them. The reason is--that, but for these modes of compression, to such a bulk would the matter have swollen, that, before the result had been obtained, the minds of writers and readers would have been bewildered and put to a stand: the conceptive faculty not being abl to grasp, at once, the whole quantity necessary to the obtainment of the result."

That brings me to the next point, you even got the mathematical side of it wrong. There are a lot of mathematics used in different areas of economics, like purely theoretical set theory + functional calculus, which is responsible for a lot of the findings about the value in the core, by people like Shapley, Hildenbrand, and Aumann. :3

[Anonymous No.15203452]

>>15203436
That quote was from his paper "Philosophy of Economic Science", by the way.

[Anonymous No.15203774]

>>15200236
Bruh if you are at a target school. You could get into the Investment Banking or Consulting train with any degree. History and philosophy dudes included. Just gotta be good on your math, and do a little studying on the topic before your interviews.

[Anonymous No.15203824]

>>15203436
As an electrical engineering + math guy, I think its dishonest to downplay the contributions of people like Mises and Hayek. Abstract logic IS math, and to characterize them as kooky is ignorant. The question lays in the sort of epistemological framework that you adhere to. Given the funkiness of statistics, I'd find abstract logic to be more reliable than some of the econometrics you can find economists tauting.

[Anonymous No.15205009]

>>15194446
At times it did. When I read something which utterly refuted mainstream uneducated economic thought. And having the refutation being stated as if it were obvious and only an idiot would disagree.

[Anonymous No.15205224]

>>15199092
Are you me

[Anonymous No.15205257]

>>15203436
I got a BS at a top school for econ. I didn't "get the mathematics wrong" because you are literally talking about nothing at all. It's widely agreed upon that macro is the bad side of econ. The examples you posed don't mean anything "theoretical set theory?" Functional calculus can be applicable at times but it's a far cry from the bulk of econometrics. Maybe next time you talk out your ass you could do a little research first because you're coming across as foolish and meandering.


Also, anyone can theorize. the actual knowledge base is founded on mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15205360]

>>15194446
its boring and not a real science, learn statistics

[Anonymous No.15205385]

>>15205360
What's "a real science?"

[Anonymous No.15205394]

>>15205257
Exactly why no one should respect 'top schools'. You are dogmatically assuming any and all economics is econometrics. This is hilariously idiotic. I am laughing as I read your pompous post. Ridiculous.

Get out of here.

[Anonymous No.15205436]

>>15205394
Lol, you vaguely throw out "mathy" terms and misrepresent my post. You literally have no idea what you're talking about but because you read some vaguely historical pop-philosophy bullshit you think our opinions have the same weight!

Ridiculous!

How does "set theory" tie into economics? I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.15205509]

>>15205436
Math student here. Do you even know what set theory is?

[Anonymous No.15205514]

>>15205436
>How does "set theory" tie into economics?

In one of the most pivotal works in economics, John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern used set theory to explain various concepts about optimal choices within an economy. At the end of the book, all of these two party exchanges, were really revealed to be three party exchanges with a negative 'dummy' player absorbing all negative utility for the positive, linear utility generated to both parties by the exchange which all take place within the economy, and showed how the entire system linked to the economy sufficiently.

In the book, Von Neumann uses the distinction of 'proper subsets' and 'subsets', something that other economists using set theory really don't use enough of. Lloyd Shapley, Robert Aumann, and Werner Hildenbrand were the names of some influential set theorists who created the discipline as you know it today.

In particular, Hildenbrand uses topology to explain Paretian efficiency.

All of this is theoretical, none of it is particularly 'econometric' in any way shape or form. It's the equivalent of the distinction of physics and metaphysics. And it all exists under the head of 'economics'.

That passage I quoted there by Bentham is important because it states that most of the findings that are received through economics can be stated verbally (a good example would be Leon Walras' Elements of Pure Economics and Carl Menger's Principles of Economics) but they would not have been obtained without the use of mathematics.

Bentham is here stating that mathematics is necessary to obtain the findings within economics, which can easily be verified through Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, where the findings are actually derived mathematically (and even delve into existential questions), but the rationalizations and interpretations are frequently given after the findings and brings it all together to show you why these logical propositions were necessary or applicable to the general economic problem at hand.

[Anonymous No.15205554]

>>15195920
Reminder Keynes was only one of the two that made a fortune in investing.

[Anonymous No.15205564]

>>15205554
Ironic, considering one of his (in my opinion) very important ideas was limiting, or eliminating altogether, trading on shares/stocks. :3

[Anonymous No.15205582]

>>15202791
You should read interesting works on economics. Some of those are all verbal, some are all equations. You should really get privy to mathematics though, in my opinion the best books on economics utilize mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15205614]

>>15194629
>it's like 4 years of trade school to become someone from The Office

[Anonymous No.15205644]

>>15203253
you are an economic illiterate

[Anonymous No.15205724]

>>15205564
he was a long term holder anyway - not a trader. It's a pretty interesting story.

[Anonymous No.15205784]

>>15199092
Just do something else OP. I speak from experience as someone who is in your shoes and went to economics.

[Anonymous No.15205854]

>>15205514
literally no one has time for you. We get it, you're a loser and you're overcompensating by throwing buzzwords at a concept.

>>15205509
Of course, but the actual application is less in your face in the actual school of economics. We use discrete math and set theory is useful in database applications but pretending it's a cornerstone of the science is just plain wrong.

[Anonymous No.15205907]

>>15205854
>We use discrete math and set theory is useful in database applications but pretending it's a cornerstone of the science is just plain wrong
Bud, literally no one thinks that.

Set theory is extremely important in economics. Your 'actual school of economics' bullshit is just that: bullshit. You went and paid (or more likely your parents paid) for some education from some 'top tier' university so you can walk around and pretend the entirety of economics is econometrics.

:3fag owned you and you are still seething, but that's okay maybe you'll become more humble, wise up, and read a little more. I'll give it some time.

[Anonymous No.15205920]

>>15205907
>>15205854
Sorry, just to clarify: Set theory is a cornerstone of the science of economics.

You were wrong. And you have a degree. That's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.15205926]

>>15205582
Yeah, but I'm looking for a resource that can point me toward those interesting works on economics

[Anonymous No.15205947]

>>15205920
lol, OK, enjoy nobody who knows anything falling for your facade of higher knowledge.

>>15205907
Lol, I'd like to see you actually know any of the concepts people in economics actually study. Instead you just throw some loaded math term (of a subset of math that's fucking gigantic) at it and pretend like you know about it because it exists in the realm.

Loser.

[Anonymous No.15205986]

>>15194446
I’ve done two economics courses during my degree, one theoretical and one on project management. I would say we only really got the basics. It’s hard to have a deep understanding of economics without being a graduate student/PhD.

[Anonymous No.15206046]

>>15205947
Why are you obsessed with me and thinking that I pretend to know things? I've seen you in threads before like this buddy... :3

That's not me, but I do indeed know what I'm talking about. I proved it and you're sitting there being an idiot about it.

>>15205926
You have to read what interests you. If you only want to follow charts or paths, you don't really get what learning is all about. Many college students these days do not, as you can see above.

[Anonymous No.15206067]

>>15196484

That's because economic theory is mostly hogwash conjured by jews

[Anonymous No.15206076]

>>15206046
Obsessed? No, just re-iterating. I see lots of verbose morons who think that they know things because they know aspects of it adjacent to the actual curriculum. You parrot off things that sound similar and act like an authority because no one bothers to tell you you're an idiot. It's sickening really.

[Anonymous No.15206207]

>>15206076
Curriculum? Are you fucking insane?

Do you even realize how bad academia is these days anyway? It creates people like you who do NO OUTSIDE reading WHATSOEVER.

[Anonymous No.15206240]

>>15206207
Outside reading on what? Marxist theory? Pseud shit from retards?

I've read Wealth of Nations and probably more than you and can tell you definitively: it's all covered in the math or it's not worth knowing.

[Anonymous No.15206257]

>>15206240
I agree that the most useful applications of economics utilize mathematics. And the Wealth of Nations is a great book as well.

Just please relax a little man, there are some verbal works out there worth reading, and econometrics IS NOT the entirety of economics.

I've just ordered some Jacob Marschak, how will I like it?

[Anonymous No.15206294]

>>15194446
i graduated with an econ degree last year. i didn't do any of my readings so I can't really tell you about whether it lives up to any euphoria or not, and i wouldn't say i've ever felt that euphoria either.

>>15194629
oh just saw this. my program was top 20 too. my first two years i felt the same as you - i switched from accounting to econ, double major in film. you're right, i liked the social sciencey econ classes more than straight formulas

[Anonymous No.15206472]

>>15197079
Have you ever met people?