/sci/ - Science & Math

order of operations? In economics?
What is it?

>implying not all things from macroeconomics are objectively wrong

>>5129886
>implying New Keynesians haven't successfully grounded Keynes in Maco and Micro
>tfw Mankiw indoctrination

>2012
>being a Keynesian
lel

economics is both science and math
we should really have more threads on it

>>5129893
>being anything but Keynesian
>post late 00's recession

>>5129897
The "no social sciences" autists would ruin them.

>>5129908
You aren't a macroeconomist, or at least not a modern one, or else you would not have said that.

>>5129875
>the same face when someone says supply creates it's own demand
>the same face when someone says economics cannot be empirical
>the same face when someone tries to justify the Coase Therem.
>the same face when someone says dynamic stochastic equilibrium models can only be derived directly
>the same face when someone says the Cauchy distribution is justifiable in econometric analysis
> the same face when so many other things I can't remember right now.

>>5129897

mathemaconomist here


go fuck yourself


that is all

>>5129908
i don't understand

>>5129911
probably. I would start more threads on it, but the general response it "hurr i took an econ 101 class and it was SOO easy. Of course it was, and so is physics 101. The unfortunate thing is, the difficult econ doesn't start till grad level. anything below that is creepily easy.

>>5129912

i am not a macroeconomist

in fact

fuck macro

i'm a game theorist ////// econometrician

(in training)

>>5129918
>>5129918
>econometrician
and you don't do macro with DSGE models. Nice troll budday

>>5129918
>i'm currently reading the Wikipedia articles on Game Theory and Econometrics

>>5129926
>economics is NOT science
sure it is
>>5129926
>and we do have a lot of economics threads
no we don't

>>5129914

economics is NOT science

and we do have a lot of economics threads

and you can't just say "we should have more" liek there's a magic knob that turns up the economics threads.

you want an econ thread? make one. or contribute.

>>5129926
if it's not science it's at least mathematics
automatically allowed

macro is SO GAY

>>5129931
>sure it is
no it is not
>>5129931
>no we don't
yes we do

Don't mind me, just being the sexiest economist of all time.
Is there any other economist you actually want to hear speak? I didn't think so.

>>5129943
you Monetarists are okay

>>5129875
lol

Is the money multiplier relevant?

or is it just something that seems like it should be relevant but it isn't?

>>5129951
Sure it is.

>>5129951
>mfw an Austrianfag talks about the Bastiat theorem and the Broken Window Fallacy near me

>>5129965
>Bastiat theorem
It's not a thing.
>Broken Window Fallacy
Everyone accepts and uses opportunity costs, get real.

>>5129975
I was trying to point out the austrian "hyperinflation", "liquidity trap" argument hurr