/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2597220

Put yourself into the other shoes. If you controlled the world's wealth without doing an ounce of work while most of humanity does the back breaking labor for you, why give it up?

I'd rather make them ignorant and condition to accept the present situation (read stockholm syndrome) than to relinquish this power. You're all peasants, live with it.

Kthxbai

you forgot the third resource: land, how come you arnt raging the gov for taking 10-50+% of every cent you earn.

>>2597224

Basically this in a nutshell. Try as we might, it will require massive will power to change things. Too bad most are idiots and are conditioned to love their masters.

>>2597220
how do you decide the value of different labors?
knowing how to fix a car takes more knowledge (previous work) than pressing a button in a factory

>>2597232

Land by itself is just that - land. It still takes the productive labor of humanity to convert it into something useful we can use. You think those shiny rocks called diamonds or buildings and houses get mined and assembled by themselves?

>how come you arnt raging the gov for taking 10-50+% of every cent you earn

A labor based economy would have no need for taxes as it would be based on labor and not money in the first place. And yes, I'm raging hard about it.

>>2597220
>The more money you have means the more goods you own
Uh, you don't own the goods until you buy them, ownership is not based on money, it's based on receipts, deeds and various legal entities devised to protect property.

>Creates wealth disparities
Writing tomes about how mean and horrible inequality is doesn't provide causal links between monetary systems and inequality. Firstly there are practically infinite different kinds of monetary systems with different effects, secondly there are many different factors which affect inequality other than the economic system, the economic system of Somalia would have different effects if applied to Singapore for instance, thirdly you can't claim one system causes inequality without comparing it to it's alternatives, for instance you could blame air for all the murders in the world because air allows murderers to breath but without air everyone would asphxiate, empirical science relies on relativity, so to suddenly claim just the presence of money causes inequality is ridiculous.

>The more work you input into society, the more goods you are entitled to gain in the community
So you wouldn't get rid of money, you're replace it with "labor credits" or something.

You are a retard. All rational free markets are based on value, not labor or money. Keep your communist bullshit out of /sci/, asshole.

>Why are humans so irrational?

>implying mainstream economic theory isn't entirely based upon rational agents

gb2Zeitgeist

>>2597254

>Ohlookit'sthisthreadagain.jpg
>Raging samefaggotry.

GTFO Zeitgeistfags.
Oh wait i just got trolled.

>>2597256

The basic definition of money is that it is a universal medium as a means of exchange in the trade/exchange of goods and services. The problem with this is that it hordes wealth as it is transferrable to another individual. It was supposed to be based on labor but merchants exploited it basically.

And yes, we should get rid of money and replace it with something akin like that (labor credits) where it acts like some certificate that entitles you to another commodity produced. This "credit" is non-transferrable to another individual and is immediately destroyed once it is exchanged for another good. It is basically a "right to acquire another commodity since I did my part to the continued function of society" kind of thing.

OP should learn about economics before making posts about economics.

>>2597261
>>2597258
>>2597254

>Thinks the market is rational

Yeah, because buying houses nobody needed until the bubble burst (which lead to the meltdown) is rational.

Time to stop watching too much Fox News, Ron Paul and Peter Schiff redneck Amerifats.

what will you want to use as money (eg the unit for measuring relative wealth, not the 'dollar' or whatever), because the money you own is just merely a representation of goods you are owed, and ideally, you should be allowed to give up some goods now for slightly more later. (principal +interest)

Additionally, I highly disagree products have no value. for example is one litre of petrol worth more in the middle of a desert, or next to a petrol station

....Money is a rough approximation of labour value

/thread

oh wait you're about to say hurrr what about fat assholes who do nothing but invest in stocks?
Yeah, investment creates jobs and labour opportunities. It's actually quite complicated and I won't attempt to say I know it all.

But the "labour based economy" you're speaking of is FAR too simple and does not involve investments for long term growth. African horticulturalist tribes have a labour based economy, and that's about how intricate a society can become without a financial system.

I must not know anything about economics, because OP's post barely (if at all) makes sense.

>>2597287
The market isn't rational, just not as irrational as some soviet style planned economy masquerading as a utopia run by hipsters who only studied pseudo-sciences like sociology and liberal arts.

>>2597272
>And yes, we should get rid of money and replace it with something akin like that (labor credits) where it acts like some certificate that entitles you to another commodity produced. This "credit" is non-transferrable to another individual and is immediately destroyed once it is exchanged for another good. It is basically a "right to acquire another commodity since I did my part to the continued function of society" kind of thing.

Are you really this retarded? Money is already the unit exchange for the demand-value of labor (not the time-value of labor which would be retarded). The idea that your "money alternative" would have to be destroyed after you traded it for something is ridiculous. Why would anyone trade you anything of value for this "money alternative" if they have to destroy it. Because the laws says they have to? You'll have to get the cops to make them make the exchange, because they're going to horde their goods and use them for barter, so they can get something else of value in exchange for their value.

>>2597247

>Uh, you don't own the goods until you buy them, ownership is not based on money, it's based on receipts, deeds and various legal entities devised to protect property.

Legal mumbo-jumbo semantics. You won't be able to own those resources without money. That's the point. You can basically control wealth if you have most of the money available in your pockets.

>Firstly there are practically infinite different kinds of monetary systems with different effects

Agreed, there are fractional-reserve banking policies, the gold-standard, fiat, etc. but let's go back to the most basic idea of what money is - it is a universal medium of exchange. While it was originally meant to gauge productivity, the fact that you can hoard this wealth based on subjective and abstract notions of value in every commodity DOES lead to inequality. Are you really saying that a car is more valuable than food which allows us to survive?

Therein lies the problem.

>>2597287

>Fannie & Freddie shitting money on the housing market to stimulate a bubble.
>FED lowering interest rates.
>Government was promising a bail out in case shit hit the fan.

Yeah, sure, it was the market's fault, and surely abolishing the market economy would fix all our problems.

Goddamnit, from the rhetoric you Zeitgeistfags use, it's almost like you believe the Labour Theory of Value. And in case you do, pic related.

>>2597235
That picture's fucking retarded. The boss owns the machine, and probably the building and land too. You don't see behind the scenes, where he's doing all the boring paperwork, managing distribution of goods, salaries, filing corporate taxes, handling legal and regulatory issues, advertising, etc. All the worker knows is how to turn a crank all day. Do you even know how a business works? You don't just produce something and magically get money for it.

>>2597272

omg, how can somebody be so fucking stupid?

Take a class in economics and disregard everything you know you filthy troll fuck. If you aren't trolling, you're the stupidest fucking person i've seen in a while.

>>2597287
>Time to stop watching too much Fox News, Ron Paul and Peter Schiff redneck Amerifats.

Oh, don't lump them all together. I'm not fond of libertarians and conservatives, but it makes no sense to treat them as the same with regards to their views of the economy. And to give Schiff his due, he was correct with his prediction of an economic crisis.

>>2597305

>Are you really saying that a car is more valuable than food which allows us to survive?

>I never actually studied the Marginal Utility Theory, yet i still argue about economics! Herpa derp.

>>2597314

>I never actually studied the Marginal Utility Theory
>Implying units of "utils" actually exist

herp derp

>>2597307

So we just give businessmen a clerk's pay. Problem solved. No million dollar bonuses and no more shares in the profit than the others.

>>2597307

He was using Marxist Labour-Theory of Value rhetoric that was already debunked by the 19th century.

Don't try to argue with the Zeitgeist-type Neo-Marxists. They are economic creationists.

>>2597326

>mfw the best way to troll marxists is to compare them to monetarists

>>2597307
>>2597314
>>2597309

>Studies a useless subject based on subjective and non-verifiable bullshit.

You morons don't even realize that the study of "economics" only apply under present monetary economies and goes entirely out the window when another system is implemented, do you?

>anon states opinions and gets personally attacked because it contradicts their views.

And further proof that econfags are dogmatic sons of bitches rivaling that of the most conservative theist. And to think this is /sci/.

Fucking idiots don't even realize social sciences (especially economics) are practically useless since it cannot be empirically verified anyway.

OP's assumption: Money is distributed randomly and/or chaotically, and is not based on labour productivity.

Does the assumption hold?
Not even fucking close, it's so far off from reality it makes me sick.

What can we say about his argument?
Take a class in economics because clearly you never have.

oh i think i get your problem, correctly if im wrong, but i think that you believe that money is a real representation of commodities in that (lets assume cotton is $100/bushel does 100million mean that you own 1 million bushels, or there exists that much?)

think of money as an arbitrary pricing scheme (that is flawed because the supply fluctuates but that is a different story), the main use is in relative prices, not actual prices. that is the use of money.

The fact that you are using labour-credits as kind of like a redeemable coupon kind of implies that money has value (it doesn't).

The current money system not only you to sell your labour, but also your equipment (employers), goods (merchants), skills (professionals) and even the time value of money (bankers).

I think the problems you associate with the monetary system are more problems of mis-allocation which is usually caused by the inflation of the money supply.

>>2597319

>Implying Marginal Utility Theory predicts units of "Utility".

Jesus fucking Christ. What the fuck are you talking about? Ever even read a basic Microecon textbook? Or even heard of Carl Menger's take on Marginal Utility?

Value IS Subjective. Only prices are objective. And although Subjective Value cannot be measured or quantified, it can be "ranked": For example, you can't measure how much you value X over Y because you can't measure subjective value, but you can say "I value X more than Y".

To answer your earlier question, food has a higher Total Utility over Cars, but Cars have a higher Marginal Utility. This is basic stuff.

What's next? You're gonna argue for the Labour Theory of Value?

Seriously, shut the fuck up.

>>2597334

>OP's assumption: Money is distributed randomly and/or chaotically, and is not based on labour productivity.
>Thinks money is not created by banks and government these days and has no actual relation to labor, even commodity distribution.

Do you actually still believe that bullshit that money based on labor? Haha. And to top it off, you even think it's OP who needs some studying. Another confirmed idiot on /sci/. Time to stop posting on 4chan.

>>2597320
An owner or an entrepreneur is much more invested in a company than a clerk. He probably provided all the initial capital to start the thing. The worker wouldn't even have a job if it weren't for the "greedy" capitalist.

>>2597339

>implying I made the argument that MUT predicts units of "utils"

lol, I just love it when idiots get cornered and try to throw in some strawman arguments. Units of "utils" do not exist. It is some mumbo-jumbo crap that isn't even empirically verifiable and yet easily fooled idiots like you cling to it because it somehow "makes sense." MUT has never been proven, never will because it is as fucking retarded as you.

Live with it. Kthxbai.

>>2597332

>He doesn't know the difference between Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.
>Claims all forms of economics are useless pseudoscience, with out even knowing their most basic concepts.

And what other system do you propose? The Hunter-gatherer system you spoke so much about in other thread?

Only primitive, small economies that don't require much resource allocation or transference of information can work with out free exchange and a price mechanism to transmit information regarding supply and demand. If you have a big, industrial economy, and remove free exchange and the price mechanism, and resource misallocation will be extremely common.

>>2597343


STATUS:

[ ]TOLD
[X]FUCKING TOLD

>>2597343

Kill yourself. I said in a post above that money is a "rough approximation of labour value"

>>2597289

There was my first post.

Anyways, people in here have no idea how the current economy works, but they're suggesting improvements anyway.

I mean, this isn't the worst thread. But these people are trying to fix something that isn't broken.

>>2597343
>>2597357

Also, samefag, OP, troll. Angry because I tell it how it is.

Haters gonna hate.

>>2597358

>But these people are trying to fix something that isn't broken
>more than half of the world's population live in abject poverty.
>more than half go hungry because distribution of food is limited to those who have the money
>not broken

>>2597369
I believe that he was referring to the economies of first-world countries, not those of underdeveloped nations.

>>2597358
>>2597362

Me, mad? When you still even think that money is based on labor? haha, who are you kidding boy?

And apparently, every anon who calls you out on your idiocy is samefag. I'm just going to leave it at that since you seem quite mad that a non-econ major knows more about economics than you.

>>2597369

Hahahaha, I thought you might say that.

You are just as wrong as I said you are. And think about what i just said. The economy is complex and there are a lot of separate parts of it.

Changing the way we exchange money will ABSOLUTELY NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to impacting the world hunger problem.

You're looking for solutions in the wrong places.

>>2597352

Of course units of "Utils" do not exist. No one made the argument they do, only yourself, you straw manning machine. Marginal Utility and Subjective Theory of Value do not predict the existence of "Utils" or any form of objective measurement of subjective value/utility in any way, saying they do is like saying Evolution predicts monkeys giving birth to humans.

And jesus christ, never proved? Not empirically observable? Do you even know the most basic thing about Marginal Utility? Have you ever studied how people behave when exchanging, or why they exchange? Have you ever even read a Microecon textbook or Menger's "Principles of Economics"?

It's a fucking big, complex theory, that can be seen EVERYDAY. You can empirically observe the Law of Decreasing Marginal Utility everyday in several different situations, just by examining day-to-day occurrences you can see that value is Subjective. MUT is just like fucking Evolution.

And what do you propose instead of MUT? The fucking Labour-Theory of Value? Answer me, where does "Value" come from, and then try to prove it empirically.

The MUT doesn't even have anything to do with money. It's about why people value things and why people exchange things. It's about economics decisions, NOT money-decisions.

You are just like Creationists who, not understanding the theory and not knowing it's predictions and implications, assume there are none. GTFO of /sci/ forever.

>>2597375

Not even remotely close. See the utter idiocy of

>>2597377

He still thinks the present system is not in dire need of fixing. And you do realize this system is what is employed all over the world right?

> or any form of objective measurement of subjective value/utility in any way
>implies subjective measurement is valid/valuable in every way.

Jesus Christ, this moron doesn't even realize he shoots his own foot. Are econfags really this stupid?

>>2597376

Nobody in here seems to know shit about economics. These people are picking up terms they hear on the news and are misinterpreting them and misusing them. I don't know why the other people went off on a tangent to discuss utility... Sure interesting subject but irrelevant to the thread.

The person who tried to argue that economics is useless is completely retarded. We haven't mastered the economy yet and probably never will, but without a thorough knowledge of economics, we wouldn't all have computers right now, for example.

>>2597369

>3rd world countries.
>Suffering from horrible climates/disasters, dictatorships, SEVERAL wars, protectionism, Communism, imperialism, unstable governments, and even lack of market economies.

>It's money's fault!

Also, taking from his "Money is labour-value!" bullshit, i can only assume he believes the Labor-Theory of Value and doesn't know shit about how money works or why it's valuable.

Protip:
>Value has nothing to do with labour. ESPECIALLY money value.
>The LTV is so wrong it's not even funny,debunked in the 19th century, yet you call the MUT pseudoscience.

GTFO of /sci/ OP. You don't know shit about science or empiricism.

>>2597377

>Changing the way we exchange money will ABSOLUTELY NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to impacting the world hunger problem.
>You're looking for solutions in the wrong places.
>Ridicule idea that's been proposed by political-economists smarter than him
>Don't give out reasons why but more ad hominems and faggotry.

Stay classy /sci/.

>>2597380

You're still not getting it.

"the system"

What PART of the system?

THE WHOLE SYSTEM!?!?!?!???!?!??!??????????????!!!!!!!!!!

Good luck with that. Figure out exactly what needs fixing and then figure out how it works, then consider a solution. Don't just be a dumb fucking sociologist or philosopher who points and shout "problems!" at fucking everything.

>>2597305
>Legal mumbo-jumbo semantics.
>The more money you have means the more goods you own.
So if someone with $1000000 spends it on a $1000000 house and now has $0 and a house, does this mean they don't own the house because they've spent all their money? I know you don't mean this but I'm not splitting hairs, that's what your statement implies, it's not something someone trying to piece together a logical rational argument would start with. I feel I can't ignore that, you should state a series of facts and present an analysis of their interactions while keeping fruity emotional appeals seperate from the straight talk to create a compelling argument.

>While it was originally meant to gauge productivity
Money wasn't intentionally engineered to gauge productivity, it was a medium of exchange to facilitate to exchange of goods between 2 people who do not trust each other.

>>2597362
>>2597377
>>2597378
>>2597390

Samefag. Only one anon could only be this mad for someone going against his cherished and trashy social science he calls economics.

How does it feel to know you will only be relegated to shit-tier in the world of objective /sci/entific reasoning?

Money is a lie

/_\

>>2597305
>the fact that you can hoard this wealth based on subjective and abstract notions of value
No, the wealth is hoarded in the form of secure property, money is just the medium of exchange, it's as relevant as the fact evil corporations utilize mathematics or shovels, you're singling money out for no reason.

>>2597384

>Ignores all of post, focus on one line.
>Straw man it anyway.

OK, moron, listen to this.

Value and utility are fucking subjective. They can't and DON'T NEED TO BE measured or quantified. Subjective "measurement" isn't valid, but we aren't trying to measure anything, because utility can't be measured and doesn't need to be. Only Prices can be measured, but then we get into Price Theory, which is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEORY.

Saying that because of this Subjectivist Theory is useless is like saying Evolution is useless because we can't measure "how evolved" a species is.

MUT doesn't predict "Utils" or shit like that. By saying they do you show to understand absolutely NOTHING about the Theory.

The effects of the Law of Decreasing Marginal Utility can be seen everyday. The distinction between Total Utility and Marginal Utility can be seen everyday, as humans make decisions based on the Margin.

And again, MUT has fucking nothing to do with money. It's a theory about value. The only one shooting himself in the foot is you.

You can only be a troll. No one can be this stupid.

Also,
>Deny whole field of Science, even though i don't know it's most basic concepts.
>Post of science board.
>Claim to be an empiricist.

>>2597391

ROFL

He's not fucking clear on what the issue is!!! Where do you want to solve world hunger? In fucking Ethiopia? Well they already have a fucking complete labour based economy. You think going to a labour based economy in north America will somehow put food in their stomaches???? It's impossible, what you're recommending would entail closing all of the banks and removing the entire stock market. That is fucking stupid and anyone who disagrees is a fucking retard. Sorry I swear a lot, just part of my vocab, trying to be clear.

Okay, here's a little tidbit of fun proven theory for you---->
We require steady economic growth. The stock market is how we do it. Without the stock market, companies cannot invest. No money to invest (hurrr hiring workers and buying machines) then there's no growth).

Okay fuckers. A company wants to build a plant that costs 1M$ to produce widgets and they expect to sell those and make back the money in 5 years.
With a purely labour based economy, this is IMPOSSIBLE. Hence no growth or innovation.

Any disagreements, am I not clear on anything, I could go on.... And i'm not mad... Just saiyan.

>>2597380
>...you do realize this system is what is employed all over the world right?

How money is distributed? Sorry, but no. The premise is just wrong. And economic and political systems vary from country to country. Surely that, and the corruption, internal conflicts and the like do more to contribute to poverty?

>>2597393

>So if someone with $1000000 spends it on a $1000000 house and now has $0 and a house, does this mean they don't own the house because they've spent all their money?

Wat? They own the house, they bought it. Of course, he only has one commodity at his disposable but this is assuming that humans in the real world act that way and don't need to eat, sleep and other various needs. And this is also assuming that you won't spend on other commodities much cheaper than that or invest in destructive speculation to even earn more money.

Did you really cite unrealistic examples not grounded on reality to prove your point?

>>2597397
I know, it's just paper right. I will burn all my moneys now then I will be free!

>>2597395

>All these posts were answering different posts and weren't pretending to be different people, or pretending to agree with each other.
>Newfriend doesn't know what samefag is.
>Derp.

>>2597410
they won't own the house for long, the taxes on a home like that are astounding

>>2597395

Two of those are me. I'm not the guy talking about utility and such.

And i'm not even mad, i'm just trying to be clear that they are in fact wrong.

>>2597220
>>2597220
>>2597220

Money does not = ownership.

Money = a certain purchasing power.

Money is an asset.

Any asset = a certain purchasing power.

Labor = an asset

It can be exchanged for money.

Therefore, my labor (as an asset) is rewarded with purchasing power (money) that is more easily exchangeable than other items.

I'm a troll whore is what I am.

>>2597402

> They can't and DON'T NEED TO BE measured or quantified. Subjective "measurement" isn't valid, but we aren't trying to measure anything, because utility can't be measured and doesn't need to be.
>Subjective "measurement" isn't valid

So what you're basically saying is it isn't falsifiable and he has every reason to disbelieve so because it is unscientific and irrational and yet you proceed to call him a moron anyway?

Nice argument there. I'm sure to use the same arguments to prove the existence of big foot and that teacup orbiting the sun.

Why can't we ever have an economics thread without it becoming a huge shitstorm?

>>2597421

Because every econfag who doesn't know an inch of science and how it works is a dogmatic idiot. I should know, I've been there, that is until I realized half of the shit in this social science is grounded on hocus-pocus and its theories isn't even empirically verifiable in the first place.

At first glance, it makes sense. Delve a little closer and realize that most of it is shit pulled out of someone's ass.

>>2597421
Cause they're not economic thread.

They're ideology thread / political.

>>2597421

My bad. I called everyone stupid. But they won't take "you're wrong" for an answer, they just say "i mad" and stuff....

>>2597421
Because of people who spend more time accusing the thread of being a shitstorm instead of contributing to the discussion.

>>2597220
Why don't you die commie scum. Your kind has blood of millions on their hands.

>>2597420

Marginal Utility IS fucking falsifiable. Ability to measure =/= falsifiability. We can't measure "how evolved" a species is either, doesn't mean Evolution isn't falsifiable. My point is that he is straw manning and misunderstanding the theory completely.

When one person trades an apple for an orange, it's because he ( subjectively) values the apples more than the oranges. We don't need to measure "how much" he values the apples over the oranges with "Utils", all we need to do is say "This man likes apples, but he had an orange, thus he exchanged an orange for an apple".

When one decides to buy a car rather than buy tons of food, is because he has higher Marginal Utility for the car ( afterall, he needs a car a lot, and doesn't need a ton of food), even though food has higher Total Utility ( afterall, we can live with out a car, but not with out food).

The distinction between Marginal and Total Utility can be seen in action everyday. The subjectivity of value too. The fact they can't be measured by definition ( though they can be ranked) has nothing to do with the falsifiability of the theory.

>he has every reason to disbelieve so because it is unscientific and irrational

Nice extreme projection in there.

>>2597427

And I agree with this.

>>2597426
Why does economics work then? Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong, more likely it means you have low intelligence.

>>2597426

And let me reiterate, it's not "science" in the first place, the graphs and numbers might make it so but is not. It is just math wank and then later on using statistics and regression analysis to prove the "theory" right that wasn't even experimentally verified in the first place prior to its inception.

How science works:

Have an idea -> verify it using experimentation -> does the data support your idea? If no, then disregard idea, if yes -> experiment again -> verify if it is constant -> Eureka! New theory!


What happens with economics:

pull idea out of ass -> pull some math out of ass -> call it a theory -> gather statistics to prove it right -> if the numbers and stats can be fit to match the theory, proceed to prove that it is right. If not, then try to explain the limited data gathering/knowledge at the time and explain that further studies need to be made.

Econfags in a nutshell. It's not even science, it's more philosophy and politics to be honest.

>>2597429
I'm pretty sure I did (and do) contribute, and without calling anyone retarded and/or a faggot. It's not especially productive to do that and use strawmen with impunity, as some posters in this thread have done.

>>2597437
>economics work

lolwut

>>2597441

Why are you so mad? I am an econfag and I don't consider econ a science. I know the differences.

Ummm... Calling it philosophy and politics is pretty wrong though.

I think of it as a mathematical analysis of how humans interact with each other. Something like that.

>>2597437

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims to understand economics and fails to realize the theories that are made are pulled out of the blue is that of a person with low-intelligence.

I'm sorry, but anyone with a half a brain could see by now that it's nowhere even supported, despite its claims.

By the way, see >>2597441

But I doubt your dogmatic dipshit of a brain will ever open your eyes to that fact.

>>2597449

Because of the half-wits here (and trust me, most econfags) who think their ideas and theories are beyond reproach. Just look at the thread, anyone proposing a different set of system not based on what has been grounded into every econfag's numbskull will go:

HURR YOU IDIOT WE ARE RIGHT YOU IGNORANT DERP!

Without even realizing they are the idiots for appearing such dogmatic shitfucks. I find it appalling that econfags are more dogmatic than religiousfags.

ITT: A gigantic shitstorm of ad hominem, straw men, non sequiturs and projections.

All of you ITT, GTFO OF /SCI/ FOREVER.
Especially the OP, /sci/ isn't the place for Zeitgeist-ism. The places for that are /b/, /x/ and /new/(OHWAIT, that shitty board was deleted).

>>2597441
Experimentation is difficult in economics, however experimentation is difficult in meteorology also, this does not mean we cannot make short term predictions, determine the probability of events or discover the limits of certain phenomena in either.

>>2597428

Econfag:
>Hold on to econfag ideas. Makes argument, I am right, you are wrong. You are an idiot.

Ultra-conservative theist fag:
>Hold on to some religious teaching. I am right you are wrong. You will go to hell.

Spot the difference.

>>2597441

Although i will agree that Mainstream Neoclassical economics are so full of shit it's not even funny, your dismissal of Marginalism is wrong. Empirical evidence for it can be seen everyday, all the time, and if you read even the basics about the theory and it's origins it's clear it wasn't pulled out of someone's ass at all.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with money or monetary based economics. It's about why people value things and make exchanges. Nothing to do with what you are criticizing.

Also, >>2597433

>>2597460

The climate obeys the laws of physics. What laws do humans obey? How are you gonna isolate the variables, run experiments on them and make predictions regarding what they'll do?

Think about it.

>>2597457

Well okay, the system that OP is talking about is the basis of our current system. We started off with a very simple labour based economy. It evolved continuously into what we have today. CONTINUOUSLY.(Part of the reason we can't do full fledge "experiments" entails this too): It's a CoNtInUoUs economy. You can't just overhaul the entire system, especially where we are now. You have to make (RELATIVELY) slow influential changes in the short run that will become evident in the long run.

As a fun experiment, if there was a god and we were it, what do you think would happen if we went to OP's idea in one quick burst? Horrible horrible things. Just about everything would crash, phone service, internet, global communications. We would lose everything we have essentially and millions of people would die almost immediately. Billions shortly after that. The shear chaos effect of "changing the economy" like that is almost unimaginably devastating. That's just why I said OP is unbelievably stupid. And yeah back to the fact is that we evolved into the economy we have today from something like OP's "labour economy", and all of our evolutionary changes were in fact for the better. I forgot what your question was but I think I answered it earlier, feel free to ask me to clear anything up or if you have a problem with what I just said.

>DOGMATIC FUCKS YOU'RE WORSE THAN THEISTS
>MINDSLESS SHEEP HUMANS ARE IDIOTS

Why is this the only way to make a point?

>>2597472

And the reality of it. Econ is very real at times. We do seriously discuss these points. OP's idea is impossible again because there are going to be profit seekers no matter what! Selling drugs is illegal and people still do it for the profit. If changed our "economy", really you want to change the way people think, then there is still the existence for an opportunity for someone to open up a business and start generating profits. This WILL happen, no matter what.. . .

>Mainstream Neoclassical economics are so full of shit

This is one point that I agree with.
I also agree with some fag above who said that mainstream economics is not a science, it is simply a body of work that attempts to show a theory is correct with no empirical evidence.

What economics needs to do is 1) actually take a look at the real world 2) carefully study how governments, central banks, and the commercial banking system works 3) draw careful conclusions based on the previous FACTS, in concordance with empirical evidence.

Every fucking day I turn on the television and hear "deficit! government debt! must get rid of it" and I shake my head at the utter ignorance of the masses.

The fact is that a sovereign government, in a fiat currency with a floating exchange rate can never have an unstustainable deficit - by unsustainable I mean default.

The ONLY barrier to government spending is inflation. BUT: inflation will only occur when real resources, INCLUDING labour are at full utilisation. At that point, government spending will bid up the price and cause inflation.

At the moment America is NO WHERE NEAR that point; 10% unemployment, another 15% underemployment and 33% of capital lying idle. Inflation is no where near and instead of productive spending AND tax cuts for lower income brackets, we are talking about "slashing the deficit" and "getting the debt under control".

Fuck humans are stupid.

>>2597460

I will agree that economics as a study in its present form is somewhat useful because it has studied the present system. However, apply it in a different system and all the "theories" (as if they can be called theories without undergoing empirical experimentation, fucking delusional econfucks) it has made will go out the window. The point is that most of it "might" be true, FOR THE PRESENT SYSTEM.

Will supply and demand work in a hunter-gatherer system in the absence of prices? Will the budget line and indifference curve analysis work in a collective economy where money isn't involved such as those of the industrialized anarcho-commune of Anarchist Catalona? Will supply-side economics work in purely barter trade? Think about it, all of the half-assed ideas goes out the window when you analyze another economic system.

The fault of econfags is that they assume their half-assed theories are constant and apply to all systems regardless whether they are monetary based or not. This is what led me to the rejection of economics because it borders that of the dogmatic and unscientific.

Meteorology at least have the backing of real sciences such as physics and chemistry. Can you say the same for econfags?

>>2597510
You sound intelligent. Go on...

>>2597510

>The ONLY barrier to government spending is inflation. BUT: inflation will only occur when real resources, INCLUDING labour are at full utilisation. At that point, government spending will bid up the price and cause inflation.

And another point to consider with economics, every econfag thinks this will go indefinitely. The fact that most even fail to realize that money as an abstract idea is infinite but REAL resources are not. Unless we go to space and start mining and develop technologies to gather the resources space has to give us, we will destroy our planet.

Sorry to burst your bubble, econfags are idiots also. Every country will suffer inflation, it's not a matter of how, it's a matter of when.

>>2597465
>What laws do humans obey?
Humans are not completely predictably but they are not completely chaotic either. We don't have one person covering himself in tomato ketchup and running through the streets naked while another hops up and down on one foot pretending to be a one legged chicken. This isn't difficult to understand.

Fucking imbecilic zeitgeistian threads and idiots facing off their strawmen against each other.

Do any of you actually know what economists do for a living? Very few of them sit around prognosticating about future trends and perfect systems. What most professional economists do is get hired to give advice like "Look, it's the middle of summer, 40C outside, stop advertising heaters and start advertising your air conditioners."

>>2597524
Ok well in a nutshell this is how the world works. Not by any textbook theory, but by real evidence that you can access on most central banks' websites (it's quite obscure and difficult to find) or by talking to the treasury officials of any large commercial bank (if they'll give you the time of day).

When the government deficit spends, it's injecting money into society. Why? Well, because it's spending (depositing money in people's accounts) more than it is taxing (removing money from people's accounts). When it aims for a surplus, it does the opposite - it taxes more than it spends. Net money in a society goes down.

Now some semi-intelligent fags might be saying "BUT GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PRINT MONEY. IT ISSUES BONDS YOU STUPID FUCK". That is partly correct. Government sells bonds to the private sector. Private sector gives government money. Government spends.

But there's no real limit on how many government bonds a government can issue. Again, a neo-classical fag might say "YES THERE IS! GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT FOREVER! PEOPLE WON'T BUY BONDS FOREVER! THEY'LL GO BROKE!"

Not true. The central bank MUST buy up bonds. It has no choice. Why? Well here's the complex bit:

Commercial banks have reserve requirements. That means that at the end of every day, they have to have a certain amount of cash on their books. Usually, they can trade between each other at the end of the day to balance up.

continued...

>>2597514

>Will supply and demand work in a hunter-gatherer system in the absence of prices? Will the budget line and indifference curve analysis work in a collective economy where money isn't involved such as those of the industrialized anarcho-commune of Anarchist Catalona? Will supply-side economics work in purely barter trade? Think about it, all of the half-assed ideas goes out the window when you analyze another economic system.

Microeconomics ( such as Marginal Utility, Law of Scarcity, Say's Law, supply and demand, etc) will apply to any other system.

Macroeconomics ( such as monetary theory, supply side, curve analysis, Keynesianism) won't.

Your error in this argument is that you are putting Microecon and Macroecon in the same boat. They are very very different.

>>2597510

Okay no. A couple problems with what you just said.

First of all, government spending raises the interest rates in the loanable funds market which deters investment. It's called "crowding out", and for government spending, crowding out certainly contains the highest velocity for aftershocks.

And inflation is a function of how much money is floating around versus the amount of real goods available. The reason we don't inflate during times of economic unemployment is because economists forecast the unemployment and get the banks to match the change in employment with a change in the money supply. Inflation is controlled by economists, and if they felt like inflating the price 100000% during economic unemployment, they could. Hey look at the correlation between inflation and unemployment in the 30's....


And the government deficit is significant, it's pretty much signalling that you're living out of your means, and the Chinese are about to overtake you in global economic power. Any day now.

>>2597550
But what about days where the government taxed more than it's spent? When the banks go and try to lend to each other at the end of the day, funds will be short! The banks with surplus will bid up the interest rate since demand for funds is high!

So what does the central bank do if it wants to maintain a target interest rate? It buys up government bonds from the private sector and therefore injects money into the system. Where does it get the money to buy these bonds? NOWHERE. It just creates it out of thin air. It has no choice - it must to maintain the interest rate.

>>2597529
>REAL resources are not.
I agree. How about the government spends to find out how we can be more efficient? Private sector sure as fuck isn't.
>Every country will suffer inflation, it's not a matter of how, it's a matter of when
Japan has been running the largest deficits for 20 years. No inflation. Nowhere near.
>

>>2597472

>As a fun experiment, if there was a god and we were it, what do you think would happen if we went to OP's idea in one quick burst?

You are projecting. Nowhere did OP state that we should all do that in one quick burst. Furthermore, are you really that delusional to think we are now better because of the evolution of capitalist economics? Has it even occurred to you that many people, especially 3rd world nations, suffer income disparities especially because of this? Some system that turned out, where a minority oppresses a majority.

Protip: It's science and technology, not economics that raised our standard of living. Econfags need to get it through your heads.

>>2597554
>First of all, government spending raises the interest rates in the loanable funds market which deters investment. It's called "crowding out"
No it certainly does not. There is no empirical or real-life evidence for crowding out. Read my post above: government spending drives DOWN the short-term interest rate. I know because I deal with this every day in my job. Read any document you like from the Fed, the Reserve Bank of Australia, or the International Bank of Settlements. This is not theory, it is operational reality. Neo-classical theory is simply wrong in this aspect.

>And inflation is a function of how much money is floating around versus the amount of real goods available. The reason we don't inflate during times of economic unemployment is because economists forecast the unemployment and get the banks to match the change in employment with a change in the money supply. Inflation is controlled by economists, and if they felt like inflating the price 100000% during economic unemployment, they could. Hey look at the correlation between inflation and unemployment in the 30's....

I am sorry but you are completely incorrect. I assume you are talking about MV=PQ. The equation is correct, but what mainstream econommics completely fucks up is that they hold velocity (V) constant, with NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back that up. The money supply (M) can CERTAINLY expand without causing inflation when velocity has dropped - like in a deep recession. Therefore your analysis is limited and quite simply incorrect.

>>2597551

Indifference curve and budget line analysis is pretty much microeconomics. The rest are as you said macroeconomics.

Furthermore, macro and micro form a part and parcel of modern mainstream economics. You cannot detach one from the other because every higher economics theory such as those International Trade rely heavily on both micro and macro.

Furthermore, supply and demand works in a hunter-gatherer economic system in the absence of prices? You better be joking. Supply and demand needs an essential variable to attain "equilibrium" - prices. And yet, every person in the hunter-gatherer tribe gets a share of the hunt and gets the benefits of the toolmaker, child-rearer and the cooperation of everybody else without the need for price.

Unless I missed something, you need some explaining on how present capitalist analysis of capitalist economics apply to other economic systems econfag.

>>2597583
>>2597578
econofag sounds like he has a point...

>>2597568

Econ isn't taking credit for the scientific breakthroughs. But it would be funny to piss you off and show you the evolution of economic theory compared to the latest and greatest major technological improvements. We've been studying chemistry and physics for thousands of years, but it seems that when economics came around, scientific and technological breakthrough seems to have skyrocketed.

And my experiment was yeah, an extreme one. But OP's suggestion would still have the same consequences. The only way to go to a pure labour credit based economy (lol again) is to just tell business they can't have a business anymore. Shit this may happen in the next major Malthusian prediction (not joking), but it will certainly carry with it a lot of death and completely shut down technological progress.

Ending world hunger is a tough question. I think we need to keep going the way we are, continue to strongly support sufferers with our surpluses (we have more food than we need, I know) and bring democracy to those fucking places.

Oh yeah lol. I forgot silly me. It's their fucking governments that won't let their society evolve. Lack of organization, and there are international laws that prevent us from going in there and physically stimulating nations. The people who own those impoverished countries don't want our help. But as soon as we get the chance we will give it to them.

All they need is a fucking mcdonalds. Open up a store next to it. People can sell clothes to the people who work at mcdonalds and vice versa. But they won't let us on their fucking land.

>>2597578

> Neo-classical theory is simply wrong in this aspect.

Heck, every economic theory is based on groundless assumptions from the start. Why should a rational person adhere to any economic theory when it's not even verifiable empirically in the first place>

>And the government deficit is significant, it's pretty much signalling that you're living out of your means
I hear that phrase all the time "living out of your means", but the fact is that the government does not function in the same way as a government does. A household is limited in its funds - it cannot simply create them. A sovereign government is not limited - in fact it is the monopoly owner of the money supply in a fiat monetary system. Therefore household economics simply does not apply to a monetary sovereign government like the U.S, U.K, Aus, etc.

Hey faggot fuck, I know the same amount as you do yet I didn't pay shit for you. No go suck your father's dick like you were doing you sister-raping piece of baby-boning shit.

>>2597609
>Heck, every economic theory is based on groundless assumptions from the start. Why should a rational person adhere to any economic theory when it's not even verifiable empirically in the first place?
I agree that you shouldn't adhere to something if it's not verifiable empirically. But what I've stated above IS NOT mainstream economic theory - it is the operational reality of how central banks, commercial banks and the government operates. Mainstream economics ignores this, whereas it should be the STARTING POINT - understanding the mechanics of the system, before making prescriptions.

Like I said, don't take my word for it (like the mainstream economists expect you to); go find out how commercial banks' treasury departments, central banks, and government operate and you'll have an insight into it.

>>2597604

>We've been studying chemistry and physics for thousands of years, but it seems that when economics came around, scientific and technological breakthrough seems to have skyrocketed.

Are you seriously implying that the scientific and technological breakthroughs before 19th century is the same as it is now? Wow, just wow. I won't even bother to call you an idiot with this one because it is a waste of my time.

And again, correlation =/= causation.

Just because capitalist economics happened to evolve in its present form at the same time the combustion engine was created doesn't mean shit. What economics simply is all about is the ways and means of how humans manage their resources.

The fact that you are implying science and technological progress skyrocketed due to economics is seriously funny due to its abject silliness. I'd bet you don't know about singularity and why we are advanced now.

>>2597334

"Hey faggot fuck, I know the same amount as you do yet I didn't pay shit for you. No go suck your father's dick like you were doing you sister-raping piece of baby-boning shit."

Next time, actually quote who you're pissing at. Secondly, I agree.

I don't understand why people want to support the monetary system when we could be working harder to find a better system? Must be that 1200's mindset of "Oh, don't try it, it's scary and I'm not man/woman enough to handle it. I cry because things change."

Seriously capi/social/fasc/totalfags, get over yourself. Like seriously, why would you want to stagnate? How can you, as a human being, turn down ingenuity? Do you want to be doing the same thing forever? Do you actually want to promote inequality and flawed systems?

Come on man, cut the bullshit and grow some testicles. You're just scared of things changing and that's why you "oppose" any other kind of "system" but the one you have.

I think Plato wrote a story about you kind of people... something to do with a cave...

>>2597616

Are you sure about that? I've thought about it before, but you may be ignorant to something that's going on you can't see. Sure it doesn't effect you or me right now, but it seems a large government deficit will have some long term impacts. America owes that money all over the world, and something isn't going to add up. Watch as America's power dies out real quick here. It's complicated and i'm no expert but i'm predicting that America's deficit is an issue of the country's relative position to other countries, not concerning the individuals within it. I'm just saying it's probably wrong to dismiss the government deficit as "not a big deal"....

>>2597623

>But what I've stated above IS NOT mainstream economic theory

I'm not saying what you've said is false at all. I'm simply saying that I'd rather believe there is Santa Clause living in the North Pole than believe all the shit econfags pull out of their ass. After all, both are non-verifiable, right? In this fact we both agree.

Furthermore, I agree with you that what is taught as the mighty and infallible theories of economics differs greatly from practice that it's not even funny on how they get things wrong most of the time. In this aspect, I agree with you as well. This is why I see those who dogmatically adhere to economics without any ounce of reason as idiots.

>>2597595

My point was that, several "basic" parts of economics would apply, not necessarily separating micro and macro. That was a semantic mistake on my part.

In a hunter-gatherer economy, supply and demand still "apply" but not in the form of prices, but in the form they value and allocate goods. More rare and more demanded goods would still be perceived as more valuable by hunter-gatherers, even if they aren't putting a price on it. The lack of a price mechanism would make allocation of goods according to supply/demand harder, but it would still exist.

The Law of Scarcity and Say's Law would still apply to a hunter-gatherer economy ( for obvious reasons. You can't get rid of scarcity).

Marginal Utility would also still apply because, even if they aren't exchanging anything, individuals would still subjectively value some goods over others, and make economic decisions based on the "Marginal" utility rather than the "Total" utility. Law of Decreasing Marginal Utility would also still apply. Law of Uncertainty would also apply.

Point is: Several Economic concepts ( the most basic ones, from which all others derive) would still apply to other systems. You can't dismiss all "econfags dogmatic sheeple who are worse than theistfags" because modern Monetary Theory doesn't apply to hunter-gatherers.

The only qualm I have with OP's post is this: who will judge the value of given forms of labour? Is smashing rocks dawn to dusk as valuable as working to find the cure for cancer? And as soon as you have subjective valuation of labour you end up with one of the current systems, such as capitalism or central planning.

>>2597639
Yes I am sure about the operational reality of it because it is my job every day - I see it right in front of my eyes, and so does every other person dealing in the upper levels of the banking system.

Budget deficits are not "never" a big deal; they are a big deal if the economy is reaching capacity, because then it will inevitably lead to inflation. Everyone agrees on that because it is simply common sense.

However all the rest of the murky monetary/banking areas that neo-classical economics attempts and fails miserably at - "crowding out", "money multiplier", "Say's Law" and generally any interest rate theory you see in a mainstream textbook is not reflected in operational reality. It is simply not.

It is like a chemistry textbook saying "sodium burns purple in air". It simply does not, no matter how many say it does. The people out there in the real world burning the sodium will tell you it is yellow. It always was yellow.

>>2597624

You didn't see that I was joking? And by scientific breakthrough I meant the widespread access to those scientific breakthroughs. Why does everyone have a computer? We could have just invented the computer and kept it to a small proportion of the population, would have made no difference to technological breakthrough...

And no I didn't imply that just to make myself clear, I started typing something else and just thought of how much of a coincidence it is that econ+technological breakthrough are correlated. Econ was a small part of the revolution, not the cause of it lol, I was "trolling" I guess is what you call it.

>>2597640
>This is why I see those who dogmatically adhere to economics without any ounce of reason as idiots.
On that, I could not agree more.

What a lively debate, I am proud to be a part of /sci/.

Econ has made some legitimate points about the utility of economics.

The mad guy also has put forward legitimate criticism of the fragility of assertions based purely on observational and not experimental evidence, especially when economics is open to abuse by agenda driven political entities.

So, if you 2 were to agree on anything what would it be?

>>2597220

>Why are humans so irrational?

Would love to point you out to the actual article. It was on NewScientist like half a year ago.

>>2597338

>oh i think i get your problem, correctly if im wrong, but i think that you believe that money is a real representation of commodities in that (lets assume cotton is $100/bushel does 100million mean that you own 1 million bushels, or there exists that much?)

Nope, I don't, which is exactly the problem. Money is not grounded on anything except debt and government money creation nowadays. It used to be in the old days, but even then, attaching subjective notions of value to a commodity is troublesome. Why should a diamond necklace be more valuable than food (a basic commodity humans need to survive). Attaching numbers on a thing just doesn't make sense. It's irrational. To top it off, the ones who can hoard the money get to control wealth. Is it any wonder why rulers where filthy rich before just because of their taxing power? They managed to rein in money without doing actual work. Of course, capitalists today work on the same principle. Own a company and let all the laborers do the production. You get to rein in all the money. How can anyone even defend a horrendous system such as this?

>The fact that you are using labour-credits as kind of like a redeemable coupon kind of implies that money has value (it doesn't).

No, I don't. Which is why switch to a labor-based economy. It just makes more sense to have access to goods based on the amount of work you have put, not on the fact that you own the means of production.

Our productive capacity has never been the answer, the way we manage our distribution was.

>>2597651

Degree -
Job-
Wage- (optional)

I am a second year econ student, always looking for information about the scary real world.

>>2597671

>answer

*problem. Damn mistype will invite in trolls now.

>>2597672

hehe, salary**

>>2597639
>America owes that money all over the world
Let's talk about this point now. It is true that the Chinese government is currently sitting on a big pile of American bonds. For those who don't know, a bond is like a loan - the person who issues it (the U.S government) has to pay interest on the bond every so often, and then pay the bond back in full at some future point.

But the American government is NEVER - and I repeat, never - in a position that it will not be able to pay the interest or the maturity. Why? It (along with the Fed) controls the supply of U.S dollars. Therefore it can never "run out" of U.S dollars when it is the supplier of them.

The only issue in bond-holders minds is inflation - if a large inflation occurs, then obviously the bond payment are worth relatively less. But given the sorry state of the American economy at the moment, inflation simply is not on the horizon. Not even near.

Back to China now. So you may ask, what can China do with these U.S bonds? Well, think of them as a pile of American dollars, really. China is sitting on a pile of American dollars at the moment. Where is the only place it can buy things in American dollars? America. Therefore China has the ability to buy up a fair bit of stuff in America.

However, every time it's tried to do something significant in the past - like buying waterworks facilities - the U.S government has blocked them, so far.

>>2597404

>In fucking Ethiopia? Well they already have a fucking complete labour based economy.
>Thinks money is still not used in the compensation of labor.

You are a fucking idiot.

>>2597672
I don't mind answering
Degrees - Law degree, Commerce degree (Majors in Economics, Finance, Econometrics),
Jobs - Have had a few. Started off in commercial law, moved over to investment banking, then commercial treasury (that's not government treasury)
Salary - most in investment banking when I was in that business. Salary was only $180k but bonuses at the time were around another $500k. Yes I agree it is criminal, but hey, I was young and was happy to live that lifestyle. Now I'm in treasury at a commercial bank. 250k a year, but I have more of a life which is important to me now.

>>2597678
What about if the american government owed money in another currency - i dunno, yen or euro or something?????

>>2597678

Well what does that mean in terms of Chinese US relations for the future? War? During WWII America got most of its oil from Afghanistan and similar countries. They used those countries quite a bit, and when the war was over America, in short, told them all to get fucked. Spoiled relations, bombed towers, a terrible war...

China likes North Korea.

>>2597697
Very good question. Then they would truly be screwed if they owed enough money. Why? Well obviously because the U.S government cannot create euros or yen or whatever. They would have to earn them the hard way, by selling off U.S assets and/or production in order to earn the foreign currency. Or they could refuse to pay it. That pisses people off but hey - it's America.

Thankfully America doesn't really owe anything in foreign currency.

>>2597701
>Well what does that mean in terms of Chinese US relations for the future? War?
That, my friend, is a political question, not an economic one. But remember: countries do not go to war over pieces of paper (be that bonds, U.S dollars, yuan). They go to war over real resources. That is the key. All of these pieces of paper simply represent claims over resources.

>>2597692

That is quite extraordinary haha, thanks for answering. I am in an honours + math program, intending on going to grad school (at least that's what the program intends). But yeah, just gaining information as I make my way.

>>2597713
>That is quite extraordinary haha, thanks for answering. I am in an honours + math program, intending on going to grad school (at least that's what the program intends). But yeah, just gaining information as I make my way.
Good luck. I'm not sure what you aim to achieve in the future, but myy one piece of advice to you - keep an open mind whatever is placed in front of you, especially as you study economics. Actively go out and read non-mainstream theories and see how they fit in with (a) operational reality and (b) empirical evidence. At first, just try to absorb it all, but as you go along and gain confidence, actively look out for things that don't seem to "fit" in your mind. As a nice alternative to what you will most likely be studying in university, have a read of Modern Monetary Theory (for a simple introduction, search "billy blog" on Google) and it's description. In short, read and absorb as much as you can. Knowledge is power.

>>2597643

But you're also missing the point. The fact that you are now in an entirely new system means you will now have to put in new variables that are completely unrelated with the concept of money, such as price, cost, etc.

The basic premise of supply and demand is that cost and price is the determining factor of "equilibrium" and "efficiency" in the way humans organize and distribute resources. The fact that hunter-gatherers do this just fine without a need for money destroys this idea.

Furthermore, Say's law only applies in barter trade, not in hunter-gatherer or non-monetarist egalitarian economies where there is no barter. Let's face it, modern economic studies only apply to modern capitalist systems and any other system will make the theories it has created thrown out the window.

This is the futility of economics since it is simply based on simple observation and not experimental empirical analysis. You shouldn't expect economic theories to be constant in every setting.

You do realize economics is called "the dismal science" right? It's just fucking dismal.

>>2597666

Dem trips!

Also, post source.

So a janitor should make as much as a doctor?

>>2597543
So, basically they're hired by retards.
There's no real need for them.