/sci/ - Science & Math

>Economics
not science or math

>>9748081
I'm about intellectual rigor
knowledge of pdes, real analysis, and matrix algebra are required to do research in economics
that level of math is definitely not necessary for bio or chem

>>9748078
HALT ! LUGENPRESSE !

/SCI/ is an Economics Master Race Board

Economics IS a Science under strict, as well precise management of /POL/ National Socialists, Seig Heil !

Seig Heil !
Seig Heil !
Seig Heil !

>>9748078
Why would economics be better than chemistry? That's laughable. Crawl back to your socal-science brainlet league, you're nowhere near chemistry level.

>>9748081
HALT ! LUGENPRESSE !

/SCI/ is an Economics Master Race Board

Economics IS a Science under strict, as well precise management of /POL/ National Socialists, Seig Heil !

Seig Heil !
Seig Heil !
Seig Heil !

>>9748078
ECONOMICS IS DISMAL AND IS BARELY BETTER THAN READING ENTRAILS. All your math doesn't help that the theories are faulty and based on squishy human psychology where P= 2-5 range is great results.

>>9748101
easy way to settle this:
what is the lowest level of math required for grad work?

>>9748107
>P= 2-5 range is great results
The issue is our data, not our rigor.
If you use game theory in evolutionary biology your p values will be much lower. But, biologists are to busy cleaning beakers to invent something like game theory

>>9748078
Propaganda wrapped up in deceptive mathiness that's destroying modern civilization.

>>9748110
Open a physical chemistry book and see it for yourself, you scientific illiterate idiot. Why are you a science board anyway? Don't you have some paper on gender to write or whatever social scientists are doing nowadays? Anyway, leave the hard sciences for actual scientists.

>>9748107
>based on squishy human psychology
also, most econ theory is about optimization

>we

>>9748120

>physical chemistry
basically physics. i already said physics is beats econ

>>9748118
>Propaganda wrapped up in deceptive mathiness that's destroying modern civilization.
mostly policy research in macro

>>9748078
I was going to do my degree in Economics but doubted myself too much and convinced myself it would be too hard. I did Business Studies instead and flew through the course being unchallenged and borderline bored with most of the content.

I wish I could go back and be willing to challenge myself. Might take a masters in International Business to make up for it.

>>9748078
Stop classifying everything in life by autistic tiers you self-flagellating fag.

>>9748127
>be a social scientist moron
>say something retarted about a hard science he, being a social scientist, has no knowledge about
>get called out on being a fucking ignorant idiot
>proceed to move the goalposts to avoid humiliation and maintain a sense of superiority
Lmao. Get out of here kiddo, this is a hard science board.

>>9748134

>hang out mostly with hard science/CS people
>understand their research
>most of it requires spending lots of time in a lab
>also excessive amounts of grant money
>no math required
>review process for papers only takes a few months
>give them advice about statistics
>get told I'm an idiot by people who don't understand my field
okay kiddo

>>9748131
>autistic tiers
fun way to procrastinate. i like to learn about other fields

>>9748130
undergrad econ is a meme degree. I was there
undergrad business is about networking

>>9748134
>>9748078

>some exceptions like genomics
>just below Physics
I was pretty clear about the goal posts

hard science people are always trying to 'give advice' about how econ needs to be more 'rigorous'. meanwhile most of them don't know enough math/scored too low on the math GRE to get into a decent econ program

Coming from the math side, I can't stand econ for much of the social science bullshit. I know I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this, but past the undergrad level I can see it catching up with physics.

I can imagine topics involving functional analysis, numerical methods, and stochastic processes are frequently brought up in both.

All of this is strictly from a math perspective however; I am not all that familiar with the social science side of econ or the reliance on the scientific method of physics.

>>9748171
thank you anon. math is the queen for a reason

>past the undergrad level I can see it catching up with physics
undergrad econ is a meme degree. econ profs want money. so they enroll lots of undergrads with lecturers teaching undergrads the 'core' courses.
>functional analysis, numerical methods, and stochastic processes
also non-linear optimization

>>9748091
You do not use those concepts, you abuse them to fool the uneducated.

>>9748241
how is that any different to popsci

People on this board shit on economics because they take an intro macro course and think that's all there is to study. Undergrad econ is pretty easy and graduate work in economics is essentially all mathematics and statistics.I think it's admirable to go to grad school for econ but just doing undergrad is a joke.

>>9748127
Physical chem is not physics, its rates of reactions only within chemical systems (molecules/atom interactions of those systems). Physics deals with fundamental particle interactions, light, and wave/particle dualities along with a slew of other space/time application

>>9748134
t. Seething mathfag

>>9748078
>theory based entirely on subjective interpretations of value
>science

pick one

>>9748091
>knowledge, analysis or algebra not required in chemistry

hmmm. Wow

>>9748326
probably dont even take a macro course at all, just kinda assume what it is

>>9748078
>Where does it rank?
Depends. Neoclassicals rank somewhere below social psychology and above sociology, Shaikh and friends come in somewhere above evolutionary biology but below molecular biology, and Austrians are about at the level of gender studies.
>lole i took real analysis, which is difficult, and so my field is both methodologically rigorous and sound at the level of its core assumptions and basic logic
>even though every strain of economic thought to ever get its public policy heyday failed to confirm its predictions

>>9748373
This. "Indifference curves" and other constructs in subjective value theories don't correspond to how we actually choose between different goods, and their aggregation to multiple agents is mathematically suspect.
However, abstract labor power serves as a kind of "economic state function" and that's probably as scientific you can get in the field

Rigor and ease with which one can understand the fundamental concepts are two different things. Academic economics is equally as rigorous as many hard science fields in terms of the process of research. In my opinion many people think sciences like bio and chem are much harder than economics because you just need raw processing power to understand the basics. Most people who take a intro to micro course understand the basic concepts because theyve been unknowingly putting them into practice for 18 years. For example, when one learns about the concept of price elasticity of demand, it clicks with many students I teach that "oh yea, I can name a bunch of goods for which a change in price wouldn't/would change my purchasing habits". When you learn about non-polar covalent bonds you basically just have to be autistic enough to recreate it in your head.

>>9748294
It's not, both are reprehensible.

>>9749038
>Academic economics is equally as rigorous as many hard science fields in terms of the process of research.
It's a glorified cheerleading squad

>>9749075
I assume you mean cheerleading for corporate interest by basically reiterating the twentieth century economists in a more mathy/high brow way. I fully accept this as true. Im going to grad school for economics next year, and have done some banal research with professors in my last two years. Are you familiar enough with the field to elaborate?

>>9748078
youre only better than psychology. even soft sciences like ecology have you beat.

You guys realize social sciences (excluding history ) are allowed on /sci/ right? It's why these threads aren't pruned.
Also economics and finance (taught the right way) is incredibly mathematical it genuinely uses more advanced math than Chem a lot of the time .

>>9748127
holy shit is this the power of economists

i can't tell if this is ironic joking or people on sci are seriously this brainlet
just open an econometrics textbook, its a lot of real analysis, linear algebra, and high level statistics

>>9749106
>it has math so that makes it a science
based

>>9749099
>Also economics and finance (taught the right way) is incredibly mathematical it genuinely uses more advanced math than Chem a lot of the time .
Refer to >>9748960
>>lole i took real analysis, which is difficult, and so my field is both methodologically rigorous and sound at the level of its core assumptions and basic logic
>>even though every strain of economic thought to ever get its public policy heyday failed to confirm its predictions
and
>>9748120
>Open a physical chemistry book and see it for yourself, you scientific illiterate idiot.

Theoretical chemistry is right up there with physics, and it makes real predictions which are actually confirmed. If you want to tar all of chemistry with the brush of its piddly intro classes, I get to do the same for economics.

>>9749130
I speak as someone from chemistry , economics is way more math involved
Physics isn't even really math. They're almost completely divorced

>>9748078
imo its sad because economics could have been a real science if they'd been working hard to integrate real world sustainability limitations into their models instead of constantly pushing memes like infinite growth on a finite planet, laissez faire, and necessity is the mother of innovation. the mainstream economists chose dogma over pragmatism and sullied the entire field's reputation.

>>9748078
there is literally no overlap with other branches of science when it comes to economics. unlike every other science field which has significant overlap, economics is off in its own little "sciency" world

I’m a finance major but I realized it was all lies too late. Oh well I’ll get paid alright and just try to be a good person and not lie to everybody.

>>9749120
not even calling it a science, but to call it an unmathematical social science is disengenous and wrong

>>9749141
I'm not sure you understand what economic growth is

>>9749141
Check out Anwar Shaikh's work, he has a pretty devastating critique of neoclassical assumptions/models and a robust alternative framework. Honestly mainstream economics has such ideologically charged foundations, it's ridiculous.

>>9749236
>I'm not sure you understand what economic growth is

i know cuz how could anyone who knows what economic growth is be against it? i mean who wouldn't want to consume MOAR?

Economics (or craponomics as I call it) is a sham. I took an economics class in highschool and could immediately see the lies on par with gender studies. Any braindead republitard that believes in autonomy is an idiot and the government should regulate every dollar spent and received. So disconnected with math its pathetic. I should know (phd in string theory here) shoutout to r/bernie!

>>9749299
>consume MOAR
as if that were even the case
these days economic growth is almost entirely due to population growth

>>9749299
so you agree that you don't understand economic growth?

>>9749314
i dont think you understand what economic growth is

>>9749314
which is fucking pathetic for someone on here defending mainstream economics...
would you like me to post the wikipedia definition for you? it probably has something about gdp

>>9749314
>so you agree that you don't understand economic growth?
god you people are nasty

>so you dont understand what 2+2 is?

piss off. if youre serious then you might want to see a doctor about possible brain damage

>>9748078
>dissing biology when thanks to it you can sperg out beyond the 35 years old mark.
>econofags predicting anything
lmaoing at your life nigger

>>9748144
>social science nigger doesnt know what empirical evidence is
>doesn't have mathematics xD
Now tell us about your high iq nigger

>>9749325
>>9749335
did you have an argument somewhere?...

>>9749360
ya, its here
>>9749141
>imo its sad because economics could have been a real science if they'd been working hard to integrate real world sustainability limitations into their models instead of constantly pushing memes like infinite growth on a finite planet, laissez faire, and necessity is the mother of innovation. the mainstream economists chose dogma over pragmatism and sullied the entire field's reputation.
>>9749150
>there is literally no overlap with other branches of science when it comes to economics. unlike every other science field which has significant overlap, economics is off in its own little "sciency" world
>>9749312
>>consume MOAR
>as if that were even the case
>these days economic growth is almost entirely due to population growth

where is your argument?
oh ya
>>9749314
>so you agree that you don't understand economic growth?

youre a very smug and pompous individual. does it get you far in lfe?

>>9748127
Physical chemistry is required for the understanding of pretty much anything there is to research in chemistry. You either need kinetics, quantum mechanics, ensemble statics or computational modelling no matter what you do. The stuff you mentioned before are high school material here, you cannot go to college period if you can't do them. As a chemist, I don't observed you to know a whole lot about the fields you are talking about so far.

>>9749314
>so you agree that you don't understand economic growth?

>so you agree that youre stupid?

the sleazy smug just oozes out of my monitor whenever you people post.

>>9749367
>memes and opinions
>memes and opinions
>misunderstanding
is that argument somewhere?.. Are you going to dispute something?...

>>9748078
>Biology and Chemistry
I'd immediately dismiss this post as a joke if I didn't know how arrogant econ grads were.

>>9748078
Can someone recomend me some economy textbooks, i am mostly interested to learn economy that is neceseary for managing business.
Just don't recommend me some non-math shit, i want some textbook that goes deep into math and principles that are behind economy.

>>9748078
Economics is like meteorology, like Tommy Sowell said. We can't predict the future, but there's still fundamental truths you can learn by studying economics that you probably would not discover on your own.

Economics was never my major or anything, but I sincerely believe we would live in a better world if reading TS's basic economics book was mandatory to graduate high school. Not knowing the basic principles makes it really easy for govts to pull the wool over the people's eyes.
Also, it's really fucking scary how confident clueless people are when it comes to economic policy.

>>9749374
>kinetics, quantum mechanics, ensemble statics
Uhm...In english, please?? This is an economics thread, quit throwing these big words around..

>>9749404
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations#Undergraduate

>>9749140
>Physics isn't even really math. They're almost completely divorced
Physics is applied math what are you talking about.

>>9749409
This idea is terrible because every economic model is intrinsically related to one ore more political systems, people are stupid and indoctrinated enough about politics as is. Then again you could make the argument they are about economics as well given how often you see people genuinely holding the absolute stance of "the free market will fix it".

>>9749409
>Also, it's really fucking scary how confident clueless people are when it comes to economic policy.
Americans genuinely dont understand the differences between public and private debt and debt vs deficit. They complain about obamas administration increasing debt but they would never dream of paying the taxes required to fund the programs they also want.

>>9748078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qHYmx7qPes

>>9749487
Wew

>>9748078
THIS IS SCIENCE AND MATH BOARD.
BEGONE BRAINLET

>>9749490
>every economic model is intrinsically related to one ore more political systems
So? Every economically successful system has used on form of another of capitalism. If we taught people why things work the way they do, they might actually be able to recognize capitalism's faults when they appear.

Also, you don't need to be politically indoctrinated to understand that rent control is bad, what the negative effects of subsidies are, and that taxes aren't as simple as higher rates = higher revenues.

Was about to post a thread asking for a book rec. but saw this and thought I might as well post here. Anyone have a good recommendation for an intermediate level micro-econ book (needs to at least have calculus)? assume a math level of someone who's majored in physics. bonus points if it's something I can torrent or find find online for free/cheap.

(I checked the books page here didn't find anything suitable)

The dumbest ecology student still needs more brain than an economy fag.

>>9748078
>I think we are better than Biology and Chemistry
lmao

>>9749701
A professor recommended me Varian (which is listed on the catalog) and Gravelle & Reese in the past. Unfortunately I still didn't manage to read them because I study Finance, but you might find them useful.

>>9749672
In a vacuum I agree, but there is absolutely no way economic education is going to be delivered objectively in public education. Its not even delivered objectively in higher learning, combine that with the general idiocy of people and you are going to end up promoting misinformation and political narrative.

On a side note
> Every economically successful system has used on form of another of capitalism
The only way this is true is if you accept any amount of private ownership as a capitalistic system in which case you would also have to accept nearly every other economic system. It's just as valid to say that every successful economic system has been based on "insert economic ideology here".

Capitalist economics is pseudoscience. Marxism is scientific.

>>9749839
>first paragraph
I have no idea what you're talking about. How is it not being objectively delivered in education? You could just go through real life examples, explaining the underlying principles (just like TS does it in his book).

>The only way this is true is if you accept any amount of private ownership as a capitalistic system in which case you would also have to accept nearly every other economic system
Wow, that's an impressive amount of hand-waving. Could you elaborate on that claim for me?

>>9749409
its a fucking travesty that people think theyre entitled to their opinion on economics without ever opening a textbook
Does the average highschool dropout have opinions about physics being wrong because it hurts their feelings? No but they would sure tell you all about minimum wage hikes, subsidized education, and universal healthcare
Even look at the dumbasses in this thread that think theyre so fucking smart and infallible because they study physics or CS or whatever and spout their "economics r dumb" or "im too smart for capitalism" opinions. Its fucking embarrassing for otherwise smart people to be so deluded

>>9749490
the free market will fix almost any problem an economy faces, but political action takes place because the free market can take a really really long time. Political action can also put an economy in a false equilibrium that forces more political action

>>9748078
Name one (1) one (one) 1 (*chorus* ONE) non-trivial thing economics successfully predicts.
Most of it is pointless mental masturbation.

>>9749790
>>9749796
>>9749839
>>9749844
>t. spiteful that economics students have jobs and they can't find one

>>9749878
Rent control is bad. Starting rent control anywhere is always going to end up hurting people.

>>9749878
It is impossible for a real, discrimination based gender wage gap to form in a free market.

>>9749878
People need the threat of losses and the promise of profits to really put in work. This is why centrally planned economies suck, and govt projects are almost always slower and less efficient.

>>9749878
Import tariffs are only ever useful when protecting a freshly started industry that hasn't had the chance to really blossom in the country. Every other case, import tariffs hurt the whole nation at the expense of the few.

>>9749884
Trivial
>>9749893
Define "free market"
Explain why (I'm actually curious)
>>9749898
Trivial

>>9749893
Isn't that just because economists assume people to be rational and choosing an inferior worker because of their gender isn't rational.

>>9749900
Trivial

>>9749902
>>9749904
>Give me a reason why thing is thing.
>I forgot to mention, I can later dismiss every single one of you points with no explanation whatsoever.
I'll respect you with a proper response once you do the same.

>>9749903
If you decide to only pay, say 4/5 of a man's salary to a woman, you can hire 5 women for the price of four men. If we assume there are women as competitive as men, you only need one company in any area of competition to be willing to hire women, and they will get an edge over all their competition by soaking up all those women and beating their competition.

Thus, the wage gap could only work if in every industry, all employers would form a global cabal of men-only hiring. Which is silly, considering there are female managers as well.

Believing in the wage gap assumes that a significant amount of the higher-ups hate women more than they love money.

>>9749912
I think the tangible benefits of decreased labor cost outweigh the theoretical benefits of maximizing the quality of your workforce.

>>9749912
>It is impossible for a real, discrimination based gender wage gap to form in a free market.
>Believing in the wage gap assumes that a significant amount of the higher-ups hate women more than they love money.
>if we assume there is no discrimination then there is no discrimination
Is this the predictive power of economics?

>>9749922
Doesn't matter, because that would increase the demand for women. If you can pay women less, and it's still worth it, you and everyone else will want to hire more women, and that will drive their wages up.

>>9749923
That last line was less than perfect, you're right about that. A more correct way to say is:
"If a company's higher-ups hate women more than they love money, their competitors will beat them through lowered labor costs."

It’s Austrian economics or statistical retardation

>>9749878
prices, wages, employment, interest rates, asset prices, risk
game theory predicts a lot of unintuitive behavior of individual agents acting in a market

>>9748170

this. for further exhibits look at many top reseach econ, they clearly have some kind of autism and speak in a very autistic/precise way

>>9748171
Analysis(Real that it is) and Stochastic Processes are required for grad level economics at my uni.

>>9748078
In eastern europe only literal retards and the descendants of nouveau riche who did our "privatization" study economics?
They do most of their learning from 20 page scripts.
Is it really taken seriously in usa?

>>9748348
>Quantum mechanics
>not physcis
this is what they tell you at chem classes? disgusting

>>9749307

> judges an entire field based on high school class
> forgets what a shit show high-school physics is
> believes that economics is disconnected from math, despite having only high school experience

I'll take "autistic savant who can do string theory but fuck all else" for five bucks, please

>>9748078
I like economics too but saying it is better than biology and chemistry is fucking retarded.

>>9749160

this.
i'm majoring in finance now and this is my thoughts exactly

>>9750219
>>9749160

How exactly is it lies? why are you calling it lies? a lot of work in finance uses accounting, is accounting a lie?

Yes, economics can sometimes require a lot of math but you can get by with just a good grasp on calculus, multivariable calculus, linear algebra, probability theory, statistics and ODE/PDEs. More than that just and it means you want to go into academia/research and become a theorist, work on econometrics or game theory.

>>9749409
>Tommy Sowell

you mean that retarded black guy who claimed that toal wealth don't get higher it only shifts

macro econ a shit. But micro-econ is pretty great once you start using calculus of variations to predict price trajectories or game theory to show Nash equilibrium in markets.

>>9749307

>>9750242
I distinctly remember him talking about the virtues of wealth creation, so, no. We're probably thinking about different people.

>>9749141
>infinite growth on a finite planet
I've never heard economics being described as infinite resource allocation. It's actually the opposite.
>laissez faire
Current economic orthodoxy postulates the need for interventionism, but you wouldn't know that if all you knew about economics came from internet memes or high school filler classes. Just because economists are critical of socialism doesn't mean they're corporate whores. In fact, economists often clash with politicians in practice because their recommendations aren't always popular with people and/or businesses.
>necessity is the mother of innovation
I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to.
>mainstream economists chose dogma over pragmatism
What would pragmatism dictate?

>>9749517

good post.

I did sometimes feel like he just went over important things and went straight to the point which weren't that convincing to me

>>9750225

accounting and finance can easily be manipulated, there are big grey areas and there is huge profit to be made if you are unethical of course with risk

>>9749912
>Believing in the wage gap assumes that a significant amount of the higher-ups hate women more than they love money.
and why couldn't I believe that? Misogyny is irrational, economics assumes rational actors. On top of that, the wage gap has been shown to exist, so what are we missing here?

>>9749820
how much econ do you need to study finance? any at all?

>>9750942
>mysogyny is irrational

Actually, women are irrational. Which is why they need to be protected from themselves. "Mysogyny" isn't even real, it's just what childish irrational women perceive when you try to protect them, and the rest of society, from themselves.

>>9750997

>Actually, women are irrational.
They're human, so yeah they're sometimes irrational - so are men.

>Which is why they need to be protected from themselves.
Men actually kill themselves at a higher rate than women, so how is it that women are the ones in need of protection from themselves? Either way, this is a common bullshit tactic used for control.

>"Mysogyny" isn't even real, it's just what childish irrational women perceive when you try to protect them, and the rest of society, from themselves.

From before, trying to "protect" women is irrational. If there's at least one person that hates women, misogyny is real. Go back to r/incels.

>>9751031

>>9749849
Education on any topic that isnt math and the hard sciences is always biased to the political opinions of the teacher, institution, and holistic political narrative at the time of education this is made worse for topics that are fundamentally political like economics. As a very short but poignant example people were once taught the divine right of kings or that the black man was inferior to the white, in the modern era its a complete faith in the free market and the idea that regulation and taxes are always bad. History is rife with examples of this and to a very large degree the history itself is a politically biased narrative. To the second point I dont know how much more explicit I can be, the economy you live in bears traits from every other economic system throughout history like feudalism, communism, mercantilism etc. Therefore you can say every successful economic system is based on any of those or more. Moreover the definition of successful is in question because there are core principals of our economic system that have never been proven or are in constant argument like the minimum wage or the amount of public debt a nation can carry.

I cant get more explicit then this.

>>9748960
If you think the indifference curve is subjective, that's the stupidest thing I think I've ever heard. The indifference curve is, by definition, related to every single good's price. How is that subjective?

Indifference curves exist for entire groups of people/collectivities/classes. They help determine the future of demand and supply. Clearly if you add an amount of a good or service to a market, you are going to want to know how many people are going to buy it and how it will impact sales of other goods. That's where the indifference curve comes in.

On a very high-end level, you can even use indifference curves to optimize situations where the workers are owning the means of production (where the syndicates dictate the companies' decisions, which can happen even in today's economy)

>>9748960
>"Indifference curves" and other constructs in subjective value theories don't correspond to how we actually choose between different goods, and their aggregation to multiple agents is mathematically suspect.
Says who? The idiot (you) who has no idea what the rules even are to Indifference curves?
The fundamental idea behind indifference curves is to say that people are motivated by market incentives in everything they do. People weigh the pros and cons to every decision they make. It is the equivalent of going to your mother and asking her you have a problem and she telling you, "well have you brought out a notepad and wrote the pros and cons down?"
>But... like... people don't think like computers... math is useless maaaaan
Neither do trees, but we assume a maximizing behavior with them as well.
>But... like... what about anonymous tipping, buying earthquake insurance right after an earthquake, whatever else people stupidly do maaaaan? Why would people do that? Indifference curves don't explain everything brah.
Does a physisist who knows everything about gravity, but experiences a helium balloon for the first time, assume gravity doesn't work and that ghosts are to blame? Does a biologist, who witnesses a mutated butterfly for the first time, quickly abandon Darwinian theory? Do they say, "Well shit dude... these fundamental ideas work with a lot of things, but not this thing in particular i guess...." Fuck no. They figure out why this thing is seemingly operating counter to what we observe with everything else because EVERYTHING else follows the same rules. In the process, we learn more about the fundamentals, and more about the weird shit too. There is no difference between this and economics.

>>9751285
>The fundamental idea behind indifference curves is to say that people are motivated by market incentives in everything they do. People weigh the pros and cons to every decision they make.
Absolutely. Fucking. Not.

A 'price' is simply the average weights of all the values of utility that good holds for everyone in the economy. Nothing subjective about it. It BARELY matters how you value a good, most of the time, unless you are in a more monopolistic situation (which is how some economists like Pareto and Walras [he touches on it] treat economic activity)

You were right in criticizing that poster, but like most things on this site, you are simply doing a "one extreme vs. other extreme" mentality. I don't know how this bias can be cured. I don't even know if it can, but let me tell you this: there is no way the indifference curves are solely subjective or objective. As I've said, it's a combination.

>>9750942
>Misogyny is irrational
Wrong.

Discrimination is described as rational behavior. And the guy who pioneered the work in economics is Gary Becker.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=50qHcSNVVEMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP7&dq=the+economics+of+discrimination+becker&ots=ERgYRjgmyj&sig=FqgZR5LEl1uTmxku_5whqiDzvQs#v=onepage&q&f=false

Economics aka Fedora Science.

>>9751314
>Absolutely. Fucking. Not.
The fundamental rules behind indifference curves are they have to be complete and transitive. You need to be able to make a list of preferences (complete) and those preferences need to be placed in an order such that there is no looping (transitivity).
Canonically it is expressed as
if preference x is preferred to y: X>Y
and preference y is preferred to Z: Y>Z
then it must hold true that X is preferred to Z and never Z preferred to X: X>Y>Z
This is a rigorous concept, grounded in math, with an accurate definition. If you cannot fulfill these assumptions, then you are not talking about traditional indifference curves. The typical person who does not study economics would be quick to assume small quirky things humans engage with do not follow these rules. They are wrong to quickly dismiss this in an attempt to argue towards irrational behavior. If most people were irrational (as defined by the absence of the above rules), then we wouldn't see any correlation in behavior at all. It would be impossible to study market behavior. Contrary to this idea, we DO see this behavior EVERYWHERE.

These fundamental rules of decision making is expressed to say if something is cheaper for people, people will use that thing more. If something is more expensive, people will use that thing less. The results of this are all captured based off of market forces in a model which expresses such forces (supply and demand). People are motivated by market incentives. This is not controversial. Take a graduate level price theory course to figure out what happens when something becomes cheaper or more expensive and how it might affect other actions.

>>9750391
Thanks for a half decent response. Better than that other smug ideologue.
1) so the goal of economics isnt to grow the economy? what exactly is the 1-3% inflation target based on then? The debt to deposit ratio or money multiplier used by banks requires growth. They essentially lend money into existence and people would default without growth. This industry wouldnt exist without population/consumption growth.
2) youre talking about taxes... s m h. but there is no mechanism in economic theory for leaving resources untapped. plus it is essentially impossible to put a price on future ecological processes. In fact it could be argued that supply and demand price determinants are incapable of factoring in future supply/demand, and therefore not reflective of reality. Name one economic theory that factors in total reserves of a resource as well as consumption rate. Please I am genuinely curious if anything like that exists in the field. (Now this is hard to articulate but it seems as though the entire field is based on the derivative (i.e. this moment in time) of an impossibly complex function which it cannot hope to integrate.)
3) So you dont think "the market" will find a way?
4) >pragmatism, see point #2.

>>9751257
good post thanks.

>>9751451
What you posted just doesn't make sense.

Look, the example of three goods is easy. Any more, and you would delve into hyperspace analysis.

But for three goods, you deal with a linear vector space (as determined by the price index), which gets closer in tangency to a 'utility density'. The equation for the price index is defined as the sum of the partial derivatives of the different goods expressed in terms of one of the goods.

Now the slopes of these different goods reach zero as you approach the point of 'highest tangency' for the vector space with regards to the utility density. Do you understand why this sort of thing invalidates what you've just stated?

You've just stated that there is a '''''preference'''''. For a true price index vector space, there is no utility, because all the second-order partial derivatives expressed in terms of themselves, are zero. The second-order partial derivatives for the different goods in terms of other goods indeed have value, but they sum to be zero, because there is no relative preference at the point of tangency. You've stated there is a preference. You are incorrect. There only proceeds to be a preference if you increase your money, which is one of the goods X, Y, and Z by the very nature of how these curves work.

>>9751722
the problem is prices go to infinity as soon as time/limited reserves are factored in
now if you say ok industrialized humans need to exist for 10,000 years, and then abruptly die off then maybe you can determine a price.
right now its just an all you can eat consume fest with 0 considerations for the future

>>9750942
Well what you're missing is the second part of my reply:>>9749931
The one you're quoting was admittedly not as clear as could have been.

Also, the wage gap immediately disappears once you stop comparing men and women, and only compare men with women who never had children. Men never have to stay at home being too pregnant to work, and in the majority of cases, it's women who stay at home with the newborns afterward as well.

And economics does not assume rational actors.

>>9751257
>Education on any topic that isnt math and the hard sciences is always biased to the political opinions of the teacher...
Now this is just ridiculous. So we shouldn't teach people basic economics because we used to idolize kings? By this logic, history should be utterly vanquished from academia, seeing how it is infinitely more politically loaded than economics. There ARE basic principles that could be taught, there ARE real life examples whose backgrounds could be explained in non-technical terms. If we trust high schoolers to not be politically swayed by their history teachers, why can't we do the same thing with economics, a subject that has an equal or greater direct effect on a citizen's life?

>its a complete faith in the free market and the idea that regulation and taxes are always bad
Yeah, except for the economists who would disagree with that. There's nothing stopping us from teaching different schools of thought, as long as they haven't been proven objectively wrong.

>To the second point I dont know how much more explicit I can be, the economy you live in bears traits from every other economic system throughout history like feudalism, communism, mercantilism etc. Therefore you can say every successful economic system is based on any of those or more
No, you can't. The real basis of capitalism is free enterprise and competition. The fact that there are some little parts that are kept from other ways does not change the fact that the economy is BASED on capitalism. You can have many different elements, but there's only one that lends the BASIS of an economy.

>Moreover the definition of successful is in question because there are core principals of our economic system that have never been proven or are in constant argument like the minimum wage or the amount of public debt a nation can carry.
Again, just teach about all of them briefly, and let the student make their own conclusions.

>>9751816
>Now this is just ridiculous
wrong. its rather obvious. and he never claimed it shouldn't be taught. other than that i agree

>>9751834
I didn't mean the idea of political bias is ridiculous, of course it's there to some degree. His whole stance is what's ridiculos.

He claimed making economics necessary to graduate high school is a terrible idea. Switch not teaching history to not making it necessary to graduate, then. All my points still stand

>>9748078
>just below Physics
lol

>knowledge of pdes, real analysis, and matrix algebra
ooh la la!

>>9751846
>His whole stance is what's ridiculos.
I disagree. I think he made some good points about how easily economic policy can be influenced by a society's values.

Also I dont recall much about economics in HS

>>9751859
*change "about" to "regarding"

>>9751859
Let's see if Thomas Sowell is a good economist.

What would his stance be on these posts?
>>9751740
>>9751451
>>9751314
>>9751285

Does he even discuss indifference curves is what I'm asking. I'm guessing no.

>>9751859
>I disagree. I think he made some good points about how easily economic policy can be influenced by a society's values.
Our whole lives are influenced by society's values to the core. It's not a valid reason to not teach about something that has a very deep and direct bearing on the quality of the people's lives.

>Also I dont recall much about economics in HS
Well, yeah, my whole point was that it should be a requirement. Read the thread.

>>9749086
Economics is a giant citation ring.

>>9751869
Teaching economics is high school is like teaching philosophy in high school.

You can do it, but the better points they will not understand. No high school student is going to understand the more complex parts of Aristotle any more than they will understand the complex parts of Walrasian mathematical analysis.

>>9751869
>Our whole lives are influenced by society's values to the core.

Established hard science is not influenced by society's values. Thats his whole point.

>indifference curves
I looked them up. The word "satisfaction" appeared in the first paragraph. There is no way a science would ever even attempt to incorporate a concept as subjective as that

>>9751871
kek

>>9751880
>he had to look up indifference curves

Just keep reading Sowell and don't ever step foot in a real economics classroom, thanks.

I think economists are not just below physicists. If they were just below, then would have dynamics that accurately describe almost everything in the economy. Economists have dynamics that accurately describe almost nothing in the economy.

>>9751878
Seriously, keep an open mind, read this: https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Common-Sense-Economy/dp/0465002609
When you're done, tell me again how we can't explain basic concepts to high schoolers.

>>9751880
>Established hard science is not influenced by society's values.
Are politics influenced by society's values? Because politics define both the legal framework hard science can function in, and determine a huge amount of fund distribution. Not to mention all of society's values that have been instilled in all the researchers as they grew up.

>>9751899
That's not economics, that's stupidity.

Stupidity in book form.

>>9751900
>I don't need familiarize myself with differing ideas, I'm inherently right because I'm me!
Oh, no, anon, please stop crushing me under the leaden weight of your mighty arguments.

>>9751899
apparently you missed the word "established". of course values influence the direction research goes. thats why i expect climate research funding to be one of the first to get cut. the consumers simply dont want to know.

>>9751908
And how did it get established? In a vacuum, outside of the influences you've just acknowledged? The fact that they're widely accepted/probably right does not mean they weren't influenced by society. Just like with economics.

science is a cold hard tool that works. it doesnt care how you feel. its in essence just fundamental truth about nature. economics is almost entirely based on values like subjective nonsense like "satisfaction". its more like a religion than a science - foundations of flimsy jello.

>>9751917
No one's making the argument that economics is just as rigorous as math or science is. But there have been many economic policy changes that cost people untold damages of property and even life, which economists warned about, but no one listened. That to me justifies its existence entirely.

>>9750958
Well, in my case I had to study macro, microeconomics and public choice (a taxation course). I asked some recommendations to the professors because these topics are more or less useful in finance since having an understanding of the effect of political actions in the economy allows you to make better estimates about certain variables. In general though I had to learn more about the analysis of balance sheet with its ratios or the “mere” application of mathematical formulae to the pricing of financial instruments.
I probably had to study more law than economics and I hate my university a bit for this.

>>9751977
>there have been many economic policy changes that cost people untold damages of property and even life, which economists warned about, but no one listened.

like what?

>>9752255
Rent control basically anywhere
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/toronto/new-ontario-rent-control-rules-exact-opposite-of-what-is-needed-analyst-warns/article34569276/

Famine in India when price controls (famously stupid thing to do in economics) increase already serious death toll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Not to mention that literally the best cure for most of humanity's ailments is money. Richer countries have richer citizens who have both access and funds to get better healthcare. Any policy that makes people worse of near-directly causes deaths.
I can't list all of those, but almost anything done by a dictator, where subsidies and price controls are used to satisfy momentarily an otherwise failing population.

Again, read the book I linked. It has endless, well researched examples.

>>9748078
>How do we feel about Economics?
Are you trying to establish a hivemind there, boyo?

>>9748122
>wuz

>>9748078
Economics is pretty straightforward. I mean you do have a ton of different variables to take into account, whether you do macro or micro, and you also have to account for international relations.

Its something any Jew off the street can tell you about.

>>9749140
>Physics isn't even really math

>>9753082
>Its something any Jew off the street can tell you about.


kek'd

t. An economics/stat major

>>9748078
Honestly it is a science, a "soft" science though.

>In undergrad, getting two majors
>one in stem, one in business
>have taken two econ courses so far

Seems like psychology applied to markets.

The biggest problem with it seems to be that it makes so many assumptions to create a working hypothesis that any particular idea can be challenged on its basis, desu.

Are they infecting you with central bank propaganda?

>>9752238
Law is the end all be all, this should be first priority also tax and invest/bank law is a natural extension of finance

>>9749140
This is why we don't respect chemweenies here.

>>9755575
I can see where you are coming from, however you should understand that I live in a country where laws are changed in the matter of a single year so what you study now will be useless the next year. Seeing my effort go to waste like this makes me dislike the subject.
Also, I hate rote memorization so I tried to add math courses in my curriculum. Naturally, I respect lawyer and judges for dealing with this kind of bullshit (even if sometimes they can be a pain in the ass).

>>9755609
I want to believe you but it makes abselute no sense that laws would change so frequently

>>9755625
>being this ignorant of third-world politics

LOL

>>9748078
lmao economists do think that, it's true

>>9749051
tyfys (forreal tho)

>>9755625
Fortunately, you don't live in Italy. I mean, just look at the recent election.
Getting back on topic, I have a book about taxation where a chapter deals with the history of taxation in Italy where concept change drastically from a legislature to the other and the last section is called “Navigazione senza rotta”, which roughly translates in “Navigation without destination”. And a lot of the things that I studied are useless after Renzi was kicked out from the position of premier.
For my commercial law course I also had to do the exam quickly because a new law for dealing with firms defaults was to be approved and a lot of concepts were changed. For my accounting course I had to study two systems of accounting because Italy finally decided to adopt some IASB advices.
I'll just recognize that the government wasn't responsible for the changes in my course about financial markets legislation, that was due to the MIFID 2.

>>9751846
My original point is that because public education in America is so inconsistent and poorly delivered simply passing legislature that requires economics education to obtain a diploma wouldnt have the expected or ideal result. Its made worse in America because there is a very strong cultural psyche surrounding capitalism and its perceived superiority to all other systems. What I would prefer to see is an increase and standardizing of public education nationwide beforehand.
>No, you can't
Using your qualification of "every successful economy" yes you can, moreover my purpose in raising the point was to show you that you formed part of your argument from semantics. Personally I wouldnt call all regulation and government oversight "little things", these elements dont exist in a true free market.
>let the student make their own conclusions
Youve hit the crux of my argument here, that being high school students and the adults they become are idiots because of their generally substandard public education. They then form erroneous or logically flawed conclusions. This is the system we are using right now and it is a trainwreck.

>>9756248
>My original point is that because public education in America...
Who cares about America? I'm talking worldwide.
Capitalism IS superior to every other system we tried (as of now). Even though, say, the nordic countries have socialistic elements like stronger wealth redistribution, you would be hard pressed to say their economies aren't based on capitalism.
>Using your qualification of "every successful economy" yes you can
Capitalism does not require a completely free market, according to wikipedia it requires: private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit, private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
A country that has these IS NOT based on communism, feudalism or socialism, or what-have-you. It is based on capitalism. I invite you to show me an example of a country where these things aren't present, yet you can still convincingly make the case that it is successful.
A reminder: These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies.

>Youve hit the crux...
So, people are stupid and we shouldn't bother teaching them anything to begin with? I'd like to recommend the book I linked to you as well. You can teach economy while still fostering critical thinking, believe me. And again, I suspect you're talking about the US. I have no idea what made you think my point was about America.

Also, fuck me, you could have really helped me out by actually quoting the post you were replying to. I had to keep scrolling back and forth.

>>9756479
just curious what form of capitalism you think countries like china and russia fall under

>>9756479
what form of capitalism does indonesia fall under? do you think youd like it there?

Not a science because it's all right wingers.

>>9756479
>>9756485
>>9756493
>all these terms

I'm all for scientific economics, but shit like this is not scientific.

It's more scientific to say something like, "Capitalism is a developing phenomenon. It is no more an applied system than Mercantilism was. To state that it will disappear and go away is like stating that the worker syndicates will finally overpower any capitalist who means to take control of the means of production".

You may not like it, but it is extremely immature to think that behavior among societies changes remarkably under different forms of government. Unless you are talking about the graded scale of Monarchy to Democracy (and Ohclocracy ⇒ Anarchy later on, but usually this scale goes back and forth). To be honest, I find it embarrassing how much people obsess over terms with economics. There are details to be discussed, and in my opinion, the only worthwhile conversation ITT was the one revolving around indifference curves.

>>9756485
China perplexes even economists, it is hard to put a label on it. But what have you, its economy skyrocketed after
>decollectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses ... privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
Reminds you of any particular economic system?

Russia is a mixed economy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia
Not that hard to look it up. It has immense natural and labor resources, but it can not live up to its potential because of corruption and near-dictatorship.

>>9756493
Indonesia has a mixed economy, like Russia. I don't know what point you're trying to make here.

>>9756496
Kill this meme. Economics is not right wing. Stupid economics is.

>>9756503
>what point you're trying to make
im not trying to make a point. im just trying to better understand where youre coming from

>>9756501
I don't really care if it's scientific or not. All I know is that it has a very direct and deep influence on the quality of life of anyone who doesn't live off the grid. Couple this with the fact that some things seem to be working much better than others, and I don't see why you wouldn't study it.
How is it less important for humans that any science?

>>9756508
Are you succeeding?

>>9756511
>Are you succeeding?
yes and no. i think you come from the very well funded side of the debate. but i admit i do not fully understand your underlying motivation.

>>9756519
>underlying motivation
My motivation is literally the good of the people. It may sound cringe, but it is true.
Read: >>9752439 (Me)

Economic policy is literally life or death / good life or bad life. You can live your whole life as mother Theresa, and all you've done will be nothing compared to what one govt official can do with one sensible law.

I'll be the first one to throw capitalism under the bus once you prove there's a better alternative for the people.

>>9749359
Not him, but:
>be C hard science student
>wonder why no one hires them for highly technical jobs
>throw your insecurities of being a useless scienciest on others
>thinks economics doesn't use advanced math or advanced science
>somehow stupid enough to believe that a SJW would sign up and say in economics for such a long time
>fucking uses social science insult

stop that, you're making us look bad
econ students shouldn't engage in the STEM circlejerk about who's got a bigger dick

>>9756530
>My motivation is literally the good of the people.
it does sound cringe. every lunatic and their dog says exactly that and i have no doubt they believe in their hearts that its true

>>9756547
Feel free to take my explanations into account and respond to them as well.
I'm ready to admit to having been wrong if you provide proof.

>I've taken a basic microeconomics course, let me tell you why the entire field is flawed

>>9756547
Also, what is your motivation, and why have you stopped responding to my arguments like 5 posts back?

>>9756550
im not saying youre wrong. i will say that the world is a complex place filled with absolute psychopaths who really believe they are doing doing no harm. and the debate around whether capitalism is good/bad lacks the necessary nuance.

>>9756553
sorry. i didnt want to post some drivel as a response so it took a while to find the right words.

>>9756569
That is why constant self-examination is important. You need to be humble, and every time you do something, you have to look at the results and ask yourself: is this good that I have done this? If yes, carry on; if no, stop immediately. The fact we can't make everything strictly scientific does not mean we should stop trying.

I'm not peddling capitalism as a forever cure, only as the best we have right now.

>>9756574
i dont have the energy to get into this with you right now so ill just concede the point.

>>9756591
I'll take that as
>Even though I'm obviously wrong, I'm gonna keep on believing the same thing because admitting I'm wrong and changing my opinion would be far too painful

People like you are the reason why we can't have nice things.

>>9748081
>economics
>not math

>>9748960
indifference curve are just a mathematical way of saying people try to get the most out of their bucks. why is this idea so alien to you?

>>9748078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJqAyQC9Ovg

>>9756967
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN4-3_z69_4