Wtf is the point of economics?

[Anonymous No.16652954]

I am taking a pension economics class for my business admin degree and I don't understand wtf the point of this is. Basically you learn a bunch of models that you can supposedly apply to figure out how much you should save or whatever but this doesn't really seem to be based on science.

Like, this stuff seems to be mostly made up with a ton of assumptions. Maybe I am retarded but I still don't see what the point of this is. How does analyzing anything about the economy besides basic imports, exports, exchange rates and interest rates even matter? Can anyone enlighten me?

I have passed multiple economics classes but I still don't get what this field is even really for.

[Anonymous No.16652964]

I honestly still don't even really know what economics is. I don't see how any of it matters, in my mind it's literally just how much your country sells/ produces.

[Anonymous No.16653038]

>>16652954
The field has given Nobel Prizes to people who have then turned around and blown up hedge funds: see LTCM.

it's a joke.

[Anonymous No.16653060]

>>16652954
>>16652964
Okay so in the 19th century a thing called "Political economy" developed where people tried to describe what "value" was.

Marx showed that it failed in practice because value was self-destroying.

In the meantime philosophers tried to describe what things were "worthy" from a "utilitarian" perspective. However, sadly, it was demonstrable that subjects were incapable of communication or equivalence. That I can't know your pleasure in raping a dog, therefore we can't price whether you should buy my dog to rape it, or whether I should pet my dog. Who knows, maybe me petting my dog would give more pleasure to all subjectivities.

This is the incommensurability problem: humans states of pleasure are incommensurable.

As a result a group of fucktards decided to use the marginal price advantage in sale as a proxy for pleasure.

That is economics. Economics is marginalism.

They make a ton of assumptions because *they don't reflect actual reality.* They only claim to produce useful tools for others. They're engineers. If you've been to /sci/ you know what I'm saying. Economists are engineers.

The field is for supplying capitalists the tools to hurt and injure all other people.

(There's a little bit more about pure maths which is fun, some of their toy examples are cute, Keynes loved cock in the best way.)

Meanwhile political economy still exists and 90% of political economists are looking for ways to improve the working class' chance to shoot all bosses.

[Anonymous No.16653084]

>>16653060
a civil engineer who built bridges to the usefulness and reliability of economic tools would not be considered an engineer.

they're not engineers, they're alchemists or diviners.

[Anonymous No.16653097]

theoretically? it's about how well a goods based engine is running

practically? It's to lick clean billionaires boots

[Anonymous No.16653114]

>>16653084
No mate, I meant they're gay cum dumpsters and applied.

Also they've actually caused many people to be thrown out of helicopters, starve, become alcoholics, abandon all morality in social discourse and market discourse, engage in prostitution, sell blood, they've increased murder and rape rates, reduced the quality of social services.

Those are what they are instrumentally designed to do, and they've done them.

Tell me Raytheon are bad engineers for getting people killed when their purpose is…

[Anonymous No.16653289]

>>16653114
>Also they've actually caused many people to be thrown out of helicopters, starve, become alcoholics, abandon all morality in social discourse and market discourse, engage in prostitution, sell blood, they've increased murder and rape rates, reduced the quality of social services
Sounds pretty based, where do I start with economics?

[Anonymous No.16653796]

>>16652954
Don't wrry about the assumptions manager boy, that's the actuary's job. Yiu just have to plug in the numbers yearly and make sure nothing looks too wonky.

Economics in general can help you decide where to allocate resources within a system that subject to external forces beying your control. Even commies need economics so they dont accidentally run out of food and kill half their country. Economics is a mixed bag, you have to watch out for sneaky ethnic cliques that manipulate concepts and models to their advantage. If you see what im sayin.

[Anonymous No.16653831]

>>16652954
read austrian economics, specially the human action

[Anonymous No.16653835]

>>16653060
>Marx showed that it failed in practice because value was self-destroying
Marx not only did not do that, he wrongly attributed value to the ammount of socially necessary abstract labour time, when value is purely subjective (everything's value is just use value)

[Anonymous No.16653846]

>>16653060
>However, sadly, it was demonstrable that subjects were incapable of communication or equivalence. That I can't know your pleasure in raping a dog
yes you can know it, just ask the dog rapist

>therefore we can't price whether you should buy my dog to rape it
What the fuck are you talking about? The moment someone trades his money for something he is giving his opinion on the value of it

[Anonymous No.16653865]

>>16652954
I recommend "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell.
It explains basic economic terms and theories using real-world examples.
Be forewarned though: he loves to harp on about how terrible communism is. This isn't initially bad, but it becomes repetitive after a while.

[Anonymous No.16653875]

>>16653060
>Meanwhile political economy still exists and 90% of political economists are looking for ways to improve the working class' chance to shoot all bosses.
And end up in absolute misery and genocide each other like in the nazino affair
Go to Cuba commie, stop ruining and running to others peoples countries to leech from Capitalism's progress

[Anonymous No.16653900]

>>16653060
>Marx showed

Yikes.

[Anonymous No.16653903]

>>16653114
>starve, become alcoholics, abandon all morality in social discourse and market discourse, engage in prostitution, sell blood, they've increased murder and rape rates, reduced the quality of social services
Youre describing soviet russia mate

[Anonymous No.16653916]

>>16652954
Micro theory makes sense, but macro has a whole bunch of models that as you said, built on assumptions. From what I've gathered, no economist knows how to predict the market. They just hope their models have cooked are have the correct predictions in 5 or 10 years since conception so they can make a name for themselves in the field. Economics is modern day astrology.

[Anonymous No.16653925]

>>16653097
>practically? It's to lick clean billionaires boots
I agree, no wonder they keep financing communists to keep teaching marxism to the chumps
Nothing better than a communist State enforcing your monopoly

>>16653038
It also gave nobel prizes to someone that predicted the fall of the soviet union, so it evens it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union#Ludwig_von_Mises

[Anonymous No.16653934]

>>16653925
>We may admit that in its initial period a socialist regime could to some extent rely on the preceding age of capitalism [for the purpose of determining prices]. But what is to be done later, as conditions change more and more? Of what use could the prices of 1900 be for the director in 1949? And what use can the director in 1989 derive from knowledge of the prices of 1949?

Absolutely beautiful if you ask me, its a poetic justice they had to reintroduce the private property they hated so much to not die

[Anonymous No.16653996]

>>16653038
The so-called Nobel Prize for economics is actually the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and didn't exist until the late 60s. The bank dumped a load of money on the Swedish academy so they'd award it in an attempt to legitimise economics (usually liber/neo-liberal) as a science on par with physics or medicine. The bank still pays the Academy yearly in addition to the initial donation, including the money for the prize itself.

[Anonymous No.16653997]

>>16652954
literally every interaction between humans, or in nature, or in genetics... all follow economic principles. come on man. no wonder so many of you little zoomies think kale marx had good ideas. damn

[Anonymous No.16655246]

>>16653060
>marx showed
lmao marx hasn't showed anything. Commie retards like you belong on a cross

[Anonymous No.16655256]

>>16653060
You would've been right without the Marx. Marginalism is the Lord's word, pure and simple.

[Anonymous No.16655330]

>>16652954
>Basically you learn a bunch of models that you can supposedly apply to figure out how much you should save or whatever but this doesn't really seem to be based on science.
>
>Like, this stuff seems to be mostly made up with a ton of assumptions.
Yes this marxists polluting academia.
(HEGEL and) Marx wanted to pass as a scientific be due to the masses being in praise of the scientific. So Marx said he was a materialist and said hisotry is materialistic.
Marx tried to so hard to larp that he even put high school maths his books, and made mistakes, but since the masses were not educated, just like today, they all viewed him as legit.
This from those people that you get ''history is a science'', ''economy is a science'', ''psychology is a science'' and so on. All those non-Stem crappy fields pushed by liberals as a science.


Then 150 years later, all the morons who idolize science and maths from popsci videos on YouTube still praise him.

So I have a question: are you one of them?

[Anonymous No.16655339]

>>16655256
>Marginalism is the Lord's word, pure and simple
Books that expand on this?

[Anonymous No.16655344]

>>16653997
>literally every interaction between humans, or in nature, or in genetics all follow economic principles.
This is how materialism rots your brain

[Anonymous No.16655354]

I thought economics was basically statistics.

[Anonymous No.16655355]

>>16652954
>this doesn't really seem to be based on science.
Because it's not. Economics isn't an empirically based subject.

[Anonymous No.16655361]

>>16652954
Economists and Gender Theorists are essentially the same turds floating in the toilet of capital

[Anonymous No.16655362]

>>16655246
>hasn't showed

[Anonymous No.16656475]

>>16652954
you learn economics so some plutocrat can hire you to come up with a bunch of rationalizations for his plutocracy and then you give it to various governments as objective proof that they should continue policies that favor said plutocrat

[Anonymous No.16656481]

>>16653835
>value is purely suggestive
try saying that when thirsty

[Anonymous No.16656501]

>>16652954
>How does analyzing anything about the economy besides basic imports, exports, exchange rates and interest rates even matter?
Perhaps you are right, and you've answered your own query. I don't agree with your position but at least I can see that you have a position.

[Anonymous No.16656519]

ITT: Braindead leftists

[Anonymous No.16656535]

>>16653060
>marx showed
>reddit spacing
take the (you) faggot

[Anonymous No.16656577]

>>16655354
seperate fields, statistics is more of a pure science

[Anonymous No.16656585]

>>16652954
MUH SCIENCE
please OP explain how economics could be based on science when human decisions are involved, think REALLY hard about it

[Anonymous No.16656677]

>>16655330
Could you give me examples of this?

[Anonymous No.16656686]

>>16656677
The mistakes in Karl Marx's books I mean

[Anonymous No.16657359]

>>16652954
>Like, this stuff seems to be mostly made up with a ton of assumptions. Maybe I am retarded but I still don't see what the point of this is.
You are not retarded. In fact, unlike your peers you are able to contextualize what you are learning in class and recognize that the real world is far too complex for the basic models you are using. Economics is for autists and has penis envy of real science. As a student taking economics courses (alongside philosophy courses) I didn't understand at the time that economics departments are extremely ideological. As ideological as a gender studies or black studies department, for example, just drinking the free market kool-aid. To understand how this happened, I recommend A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. If you don't care, simply knowing this should answer all of your questions. They are trying to prove out a political thesis "scientifically". I sort of regret my career choice. My coworkers are boomer Trump supporters who text me pictures of themselves at Trump rallies on the weekend.

>Basically you learn a bunch of models that you can supposedly apply to figure out how much you should save or whatever but this doesn't really seem to be based on science.
This, however, is indeed based on some pretty basic math (and pretty defensible assumptions) but doesn't need to be overly complicated. Just put what you can into a Roth IRA if you can afford to and take advantage of any employer matching contribution if you participate in a 401(k) plan at work.

t. degree in economics and 6 years experience in retirement plan industry

>>16653831
>>16653865
Two particularly egregious examples of how ideological economics can be while presenting itself as neutral.

[Anonymous No.16657385]

I was told that the point the field "economics" is trying to come up with ways to predict and manage markets, which becomes vital with the dawn of a capitalist mode of production. economics therefore attempts to answer such questions as "what the fuck is going on" and "how do we all keep from drowning"

[Anonymous No.16657783]

To help us create more informed public policy you brainlet business major

[Anonymous No.16657918]

>>16653038
the prize has, for the past 30 years, been given to sociologists/psychologists when economic bent. The award is to psychological theories with proved successful socio-economic application.

[Anonymous No.16657995]

>>16656686
Look up Marx's letter to Engels on his discussion of limits in calculus

[Anonymous No.16658025]

i think you might be looking at it the wrong way. bottom line, it doesn't really matter whether the model truly represents reality, as long as you can make predictions about the world from it. The "assumptions" started as conjectures, and were corroborated by empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.16658041]

>>16652954
>How does analyzing anything about the economy besides basic imports, exports, exchange rates and interest rates even matter? Can anyone enlighten me?

It gives the illusion of control. Economists are then hired as controllers of the economy. The joke of it is that they have zero control. It's all a big hoax.

[Anonymous No.16658194]

>>16652954
>BTFO IYI
>deadlifts all economic books in one set
>knows more about grandma's wisdom than economists

>"The left holds that because markets are stupid, models should be smart; the right believes that because models are stupid, markets should be smart. Alas, it never hit both sides that both markets and models are very stupid."

>"Suckers think that you cure greed with money, addiction with substances, expert problems with experts, banking with bankers, economics with economists, and debt crises with debt spending."

>"It is easier to macrobullshit than to micro bullshit."

>" At a panel in Moscow, I watched an economist who got the 'Nobel' for writings no one reads, theories no one uses, and lectures no one understands."

>"An economist is a mixture of 1) a businessman without common sense, 2) a physicist without brains, and 3) a speculator without balls."

>"Those with brains and no balls become mathematicians, those with balls and no brains join the Mafia, those with no balls and no brains become economists."

[Anonymous No.16659721]

>>16653916
No one who understands how markets work give one iota of a fuck who predicts what

[Anonymous No.16659722]

>>16652954
Jews providing a justification for why poor people shouldn't own anything

[Anonymous No.16659733]

>>16655354
Nowadays, most economics worth paying attention to leans heavily on empirical data.

[Anonymous No.16659747]

>>16656475
By and large, economists aren’t much happier with the status quo than you are. But we have more reasoned critiques of it, and recognize the risk of hijacking of or unintended consequences of any attempting rectification of issues plaguing the economy