/sci/ - Science & Math

So much math in economics. So obviously it is related to math.

Is it related to science? Yes, its related to science just like social science is related to science. Is it science? Nope. Scientific method is definitely a prereq for science.

>>5396070
No scientific method? Can not be classified as a sci.

the other guy pretty much covered it

dont let something not being science dissuade you from learning it

feynman said that love is not scientific but its still a really fantastic thing

Economics is more like history.

>>5396086
I was planning on studying it either way, since it brings me so much interest. I was just curious, so if I had any questions pertaining to economics, I could post on this board without being flamed.

>>5396123

You probably could but it depends whether or not they are subjective questions

im sure youve heard of the different schools of thought of economics so if you brought up a question pertaining to that it would probably just result in some huge troll fest

>>5396131
Yeah, and I feel like some would just troll/flame for the hell of it.

On the topic of economics, anyone have a good book they'd like to suggest?

I'm not looking for a quick read to get a decent feeling on economics. I have the time to invest, and I'm willing to study hard on this subject.

Go to capitalism (dot net). There you will find the big book of capitalism (1000+ pages). It explains everything about how (capitalist) economics works, and is notably more interesting reading than your average econ text at that.

>>5396156
Well for starters there's Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and no, I'm not kidding/trolling. You've got to know the history/fundamentals.

The following link is to a paper which is much more specialized than what you're looking for but is hugely important and something you'll want to read eventually:
Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit By George A. Akerlof, Paul M. Romer, Robert E. Hall, N. Gregory Mankiw Source: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1993, No. 2 (1993), pp. 1-73
www.signallake.com/innovation/Looting1993.pdf

>>5396123
I personally wouldn't have a problem with you posting a concrete mathematical question, but posting openended economical discussion-type threads are highly discouraged and should be posted on >>>/pol/

OP, if you study Economics I'll see how their models are a load of bullshit and the criticism they receive is justified. In light of this, Economics is much more closely related with history and human behavior.

Some good jobs are in the financial markets (either buy side or sell side) or improving the corporate finance of companies.

>>5396194

Wealth of Nations is somewhat dated, and not especially approachable. There are intro-level econ texts out there, but they're dry reading. I recommended Reisman's 'Capitalism' because it's fairly well-written, and does not require any prior background in the subject to read (this is, not incidentally, WHY it's over 1000 pages long; there's a lot of background to cover). Plus, it's available as a free PDF, so it's not like you're dropping actual monies on it.

>>5396199
>wouldn't have a problem with you posting a concrete mathematical question, but posting openended economical discussion-type threads are highly discouraged
reasonable enough

>and should be posted on >>>/pol/
Almost guarantees that OP will be subjected to a worthless shit-storm.

Ask someone who successfully conducted and documented The Schrödinger's cat experiment anything.

>>5396213

Mostly, the problem is that economics, like all the sciences at the low end of the 'purity' scale (google xkcd purity), is in its infancy. Accordingly, there's very economic 'science' out there, and a lot of prescientific fumbling and political rhetoric masquerading as science to serve as an inadequate substitute. That said, given that Economics could be described as applied Sociology, it'll be a while.

>>5396123
/sci/ always acts like a bag of dicks to any Economist, mainly because it's not an exact science (and probably never will be). Anyone who says "Economics is just History/Psychology/something else" has no clue what Economists actually try to do (i.e., 95% of /sci/)

>>5396070
pro-tip: It does follow the scientific method. Hypothesis -> Test -> Publish -> Reproduce. We simply have less certainty about results than our natural science bros.

>>5396252
Worst insult you can give an Economist is to call him a Sociologist.

>>5396156
There's no general Economics book. The field is divided into many sub-fields. If you truly want to learn something about the subject, you'll pretty much have to get a book on every topic and then figure out which topic interests you the most. I've got a 1.2GB folder full of Economics eBooks. Let me know if you'd like me to upload a few of those books.

>>5396065
Economics could be a science, but the vast majority of it is not. It is more akin to humanistic psychology, with a small part rooted in science, but with most being shit people made up with no evidence or experiments. Maybe someday there will be a school of thought that is entirely science based.

>>5396301
>Maybe someday there will be a school of thought that is entirely science based.

MMT?

>>5396301
>but with most being shit people made up with no evidence or experiments.

Where do you even come up with this shit? Have you not seen how the majority of published papers are now based on empirical studies?

>>5396291
Any books for Macroeconomics?

>>5396404
Should have plenty of those. I'll what novice/intermediate books I have, and I'll upload them in a sec.

>>5396404

Picked out three books that seemed prettty simple. Enjoy!

http://www.mediafire.com/?j0qe7cw4p5w8vnw

>>5396447
today a tripfag wasn't an insufferable fag...
thanks

Math was added to econ to make it seem like a hard science, and for no other reason. You will find many economist that do not like all the math fluff added to papers/articles, when instead plain English could communicate the same ideas.

economics is neat
but be aware that a lot of it has very little to do with reality

>>5396470
>Physics is neat, but be aware that a lot of it has very little to do with reality. Spherical chickens in a vacuum? Hardly a REAL science.

Stop spewing bullshit about a subject you know nothing of.

>>5396065
Stock broker at Wall Street. Focus especially on how to steal from the poor and be a professional cut-throat around your colleagues. Psychopathy is a requirement.

>>5396447
Wow, thanks a lot. I'll definitely have a look at these.

>>5396447

Got any other books out there?

>>5396501
Confirmed for Freshman.

Economics is not a science, it's an ideology.

THis is why it fucks up all the time.

Sure, it uses maths, but so do countless other things. Is numerology a science?

This seems to be a good thread to ask in. Is anyone familiar with game theory? My university only offers one high level course in it, and I was wondering if anyone could recommend some readings on it.

Economics is great and all but the job offers seem fairly scarce, study it if you love it though

>>5396065

Very respectable subject.