/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9799781
Former student visits his old Economics professor and notices a stack of exams lying on the table.
"Why, these are the same questions you asked when I was a student. Don't you realize that these sheets get passed down from class to class?"
"Oh, of course. But every year we change the answers." ;)

>>9799781
>scientific

>>9799781
>no politics shit
>no memewords
Impossible to discuss economics without them

>>9799781
economists agree that the best way to grow the economy moving forward is to recycle the dead back into the food system

just remember, its all for the greater good of the consumers

Economics education to me always seemd like a joke. People learn there "Calculus" and "Function analytics" without even knowing what is integration or differentiation. Im not joking. And thats the top notch economy uni in my country (Hungary).
Everyone leaves the uni from there with an A+ literally gives no value to anyone, but the rich kids go there to party for 3 years and to learn some meme words to act all smart.

>>9799781
what happened to the other thread on supply-side economics?

>>9799831
but hungary is a shit country

>>9799841
Deleted I guess because a couple autists couldn't stand having people discuss economics and turned it into a shitfest

>>9799853
True, but our uni's are pretty good. (engineering, medical, science). Also they are state paid if you are smart.

>>9799781
My expectations for this thread are incredibly low, but I'll bite

Does anyone know of any attempts by anyone to derive the directionality of trade flows in the gravity model of trade, and if so could you link a source? Fuck the HO model, that shit is weak

pic unrelated

>>9800039
Is this really the state of the art in economic theory?

>>9799781
>scientific study of economics.

>>9800065
yes. it's like these crackpot theories how to win in casino

>>9800039
what's wrong with the ho model?

>>9800074
>there's no link between the size of a country and its international trade i swear

>>9799781
>The virgin 4ft11 Jew Milton Friedman
>The chad 6ft6 British John Maynard Keynes

>>9800103
It isn't necessarily the physical size of the country, but rather the size of its share of a global market

>>9800065
It accurately predicts trade flow volume, so why shouldn't it be state of the art?

>>9800115
>implying not 5 feet

>>9800115

What are you guys studying?
Me, monetary economics.

>>9799781
saddest part is we have to learn this shit in our college even though I study in a primarily engineering college

>>9799831
I'm in an Indian college and I feel you bro.

>>9799831
>Guy literally copying Laplace transforms from a book
>Ask him what he read about it and what is its physical significance and what can be found with it?
>Bro what? I'm only doing sums, I don't care.
>Tfw GPA has taken over as the only important thing in studies

best economist coming though

>>9801285
Gee that's a funny looking picture of Harold Hotelling

>>9800099
Empirically dodgy compared to other trade theories out there, IIRC it fits the data much better when you use relative factor abundance to determine directionality as opposed to factor mobility like in the ho model

>>9799781
What does /sci/ think of Robin Hanson?

>>9801391
pretty based

>>9801391
Never heard of him before but now considering reading his work

>>9800723
There isn't an "official" econometrics undergrad program(not sure if any exist at the undergrad level for that matter), but as that's the field I'm interested in I'm doing a certificate(basically a minor with 2 extra courses) in statistics so hopefully that'll set me up nicely for a graduate program.

Honestly if it was allowed, by the time I finish my bachelor's I could have a minor in math as well as the stat certificate due to prerequisites for some of the stat courses I'll be taking.

How are your studies going? Doing any research?

>>9800723
>>9801815
Oh and my major is economics, I think it's implied but I just wanted to clarify.

It was psychology tier

>>9801815
Doing any research?

Not a formal project for publication but I recently did survival analysis for the US business cycle

>>9801815
The Netherlands has a few universities with a bachelor's programme in Econometrics.
t. Dutch econometrics undergrad

>>9801815
At my UNI we have multiple econometrics courses but no dedicated major for it. All our econ majors have to take sequences in econometrics obviously

what's your favorite course and favorite subject?

>>9802523
Favorite courses:

Probably time series econometrics, agent based modeling, and introductory mathematical econ. I wish I could have taken game theory

Favorite subjects:

I like a lot of econ, but in particular i enjoy trade, econometrics, game theory, growth theory, and business cycle theory

any undergrad here?

>>9801391
I wish I was as cool as him

>>9801391
*Robin Handsome

I loved economics as an undergraduate, but now I am taking graduate courses and the love is somehow gone (did some computer science as well, that might factor in). Does anyone know of any light-hearted reads to re-ignite the fire? Something like what Hardy's "A mathematicians apology" is to mathematics ...

>economy is totally man made
>measurable at every level
>they still can't figure out how it works

why is economy such a failure

>>9804224
because they failed to take into account the simple fact that infinite growth is impossible with finite resources.

>>9804224
>>9804224
Because the modern market economy is one of the most, if not the most complex system ever known to humanity

If you don't think so then go get your nobel prize

>>9804328
>the modern consumerist binge and the resulting chaos is the most complex "system" known to humanity

>>9804233
value can be created by configuring matter and energy in different ways, for example, a spanner is worth more than the steel it is made from
are there more resources in the spanner than in the steel? no, but the value has increased, so the finiteness of resources doesn't imply that the value of them is limited
there are an infinite number of way of configuring matter/energy, the EM spectrum is continuous

finally, the gdp of the country will always be finite even if it grows indefinitely, all it requires is to increase to another finite amount which is theoretically quite reasonable, at least for as long as humans still exist

>>9804568
>are there more resources in the spanner than in the steel? no

Yes, there absolutely are.

It took energy (oil) to mine the iron ore, coal to smelt and manufacture the steel, and countless other non-renewable resources go into the manufacture of the actual spanner.

That's why the spanner is worth more than iron ore.

>>9799831
kurva anyád

>>9804328
pffffffffffffffffffffffffft
haha
talk about ecology first lmao

>>9799841
okay but supply side economics avoids so much of the economic decisionmakers that it actively is avoiding the true driver of market: the majority of folks

>>9804548
I jack off to consumerism desu whip me more supplyside daddy

>>9804224
Same goes for many man-made things, bicycles for example.
Just because you make something work through decades or centuries of trial and error does not mean that you understand it very well.

>>9804865
i was never arguing in favor of fucking trickle down - believe me. anyway the true driver of the market is who is spending what and if the majority of folks (who also happen to be retards) get more money and decide to spend it all on balloon animals then the whole fucking thing implodes.

>>9804863
>ecology
brainlet tier

My friend is finance undergrad and he has taken the ancap pill and totally become insane. How can i cure him?

>>9804548
>>9804863
You cannot possibly dispute this - go ahead and try it yourself genius, go use your stem knowledge to predict some markets, see how far you get

thousands of people way smarter than all of /sci/ combined have been trying to do it for the better part of a century, and this is how far we've gotten

>>9799805
;)

>>9800741
Sad.

>>9799805
Nice meme story you made up there, buddy!

Ask me how I know you haven't taken a single econ course.

>>9804917
For the last time.
Trickle-down is a political meme term that does not exist. No one uses this is academia.
> the true driver of the market is who is spending what and if the majority of folks (who also happen to be retards) get more money and decide to spend it all on balloon animals then the whole fucking thing implodes.
Everything of what you said here is wrong.

>>9805546
>Trickle-down
literally means the exact same thing as supply side. Sorry that one word has bad public relations now and the other doesn't. I'm not sure why you people always think you can just invent new words for the same thing when people realize whats happening and the original develops bad connotations.
>Everything of what you said here is wrong.
Are you a Keynesian, or were you literally so triggered by "trickle down" that you didn't even realize that the 2nd sentence actually supports supply side economics?

>>9805628
The 2nd question is pretty stupid in a way because it assumes you're not dealing with a complete retard.

What sites do you use to keep up with the world of economics?

>>9806172
the economics subreddit is a good repository for new publications

>>9805130
He's right, you know.

>>9799781
>economics
>without politics
So you're going to mime?

>>9806491
Today, the field is far more apolitical than the public would think. Most modern models are so abstract that whatever brand of politics they "support" is after the fact. I know this sounds hard to believe, but, I mean, just go find an issue of Econometrika or something if you want to see proof

>>9806506
The public has a strange understanding of economics ...

>>9806491
But why do ignoramuses always feel the need to chime in? Ask yourself that

>>9806506
>Apolitical economics
Youve done it anon, youve create a new meme.

>>9806867
>doesn't know the difference between positive and normative

itt
90% a bunch of brainlet fucknuggets who've never even seen the fundamental theorems of welfare economics talking about economics like they know anything
10% potentially interesting discourse on trade models

for those of you who've never taken an actual economics course, economics is one half understanding dynamical systems and one half using statistics to see if those models reflect reality

i personally have reservations against the ho model for its lack of predictive power, but paradoxes such as that of Leontief don't necessarily discredit a model of trade based on comparative advantage. for Leontief, perhaps labor is more mobile than capital, in which case we could consider taking the inner product of the factor bundle with some vector representing the mobility of the good, or just assume that one good is immobile a la the specific factors model. Or perhaps higher capital-to-worker ratio are correlated with richer countries whose culture tends to push people to explore the world idk

gravity model is p good, but it tells you nothing about directionality of each factor :/

>>9807006
I'd have to go back over my notes,I remember there is a compelling argument that the Leontief paradox was a statistical aberration.

As for the ho model, it's simply too hit or miss for my tastes, and I think the criteria of factor mobility for determining which things are traded is less relevant in a globalized economy where inputs are as mobile as ever. I think relative global input share is a better criteria by which to determine comparative advantage

>>9799781
Economics are much more sociology and psychology than they are mathematics.

Literally time series: the field

boomp

>>9807190
the gravity model has a term for distance, and econometric testing suggests that this term is a strong predictor, which is why i don't think we should necessarily neglect specific factor mobility off the bat. intuitively, it's easier to ship a box of cereal from the US to Canada than it is for a family to uproot itself and move there. I also imagine that it's easier for certain factors such as labor to be more mobile than, say, a factory. ofc we'd need to run some statistics to confirm this either way. do you have enough data to run an OLS or sth? i think it's standard to model all technologies as Cobb-Douglas or CRS

i'm very interested in this argument that the Leontief paradox is a statistical aberration. never seen it before. pls link the sauce when you find it

Maybe just change the name of /sci/ to something else.
Math, Science, and Economics.
Or better yet have your very own section.

>>9799781
Honestly, I think economists would be much happier elsewhere, maybe /biz/ or /soc/.

>>9806173
>>9806172
inb4 >leddit

but /r/economics is full of retards

go to /r/badeconomics if you want some good discussion

>>9799831
>without even knowing what is integration or differentiation
probably a shit university bro

>>9808408
>go to site
>see pic related
discarded

>>9799781
Why isn't this shit ever on biz,
It's always shilling of meme coins

>>9808438
The first thing I did in my very first economics course in college was maximize a Cobb-Douglas utility function using Lagrange multipliers.

>>9808446
i love economy and like politics but i am afraid my college will teach me shit, so i'll keep on with engineering and maybe then take some courses.

>>9805628
>Sorry that one word has bad public relations now and the other doesn't.
It is a political term bantered around by people who don't know jack shit about economic growth. They've never seen an economic growth model in their life, yet still have opinions on them.
>so triggered by "trickle down" that you didn't even realize that the 2nd sentence actually supports supply side economics?
Again, "supply side" is a buzzword.

Quite frankly, I'm certain you don't know the difference between a business cycle model and an economic growth model. I'm certain you think they're one in the same, considering your flippant use of the term "driver of the market".

>>9808451
Anon, if you go for an engineering degree and want to go for a graduate degree later, if you're interested in getting a degree in econ, you can pull it off easy.
The only thing that matters in econ is math. Everything else can be taught to you easily if you have an interest in the subject. Be prepared for some stats work though if you're interested.

>>9799831
you might be confusing finance majors with econ majors.
finance majors only need to go through single variable derivatives and integration for their degrees. i assume the rest being accountant courses or something.
econ majors (particularly sci majors) goes through the full curriculum with a detour into statistics.

>>9808473
It depends on what you plan to do. If you plan to be a financial analyst you should possess a deeper understanding about the economy and the meaning of the ratios, but even in financial analysis there are some multivariable derivatives.
If you want to pursue quantitative finance instead multivariable derivatives are necessary. The demonstration of the Black-Scholes-Merton formula is an example of that.
TL;DR: it depends with who you're talking to. It's natural that chad is going to fuck a lot more women than you and he won't know much about the subject, but if you find someone genuinely interested in the field you will see that finance/economics isn't as banal as you say (even if it's probably easier than engineering/physics/maths).

>>9804328
>A system of X complexity is more complex than the system it observably exists in (the universe) when the later system implicitly carries the former in totality.

>>9806878
Economics is intrinsically political and therefor intrinsically psychological. Last I checked psychology is still a pseud black magic pile of non sense. Economist cant even agree on basic premises like how much debt a state should carry or if there should be a minimum wage.

>>9808444
>Why isn't this shit ever on biz
you gave yourself the answer in the very next sentence. /biz/ should more aptly be renamed "crypto-currencies and day trading". I get the sense people on that board aren't familiar with economics, hell i feel even a proper finance thread would go to shit on that board

>>9809011
>>9806878

>>9805532
It was a joke not a story you daft cunt. The absolute state of /sci/

>>9808463
I have a few honest questions for you. After reading your post, at first I wasn't sure if perhaps you replied to the wrong one, or not since you've green texted some of what I said but at the same time you put something I did not say in quotes and attributed it to me...

Do you have any idea what the post you're replying to is talking about? Are you on fucking crack? Are you stupid? What is wrong with you? Are all economists fucked in the head like you clearly are?

>>9808463
Oh I see now.... You literally failed to figure out what green text means even while using it yourself...

quit replying to the troll guys.
let's keep this thread nice

>>9809101
>wah wah mommy the big bad troll hurt my feewings
would you like me to give him a serious reply? ok then I will... not that it will help, lol. (he won't respond. At best he might call me a troll or regurgitate some other smug ad hominem retardedness.)

>>9808463
>[supply-side economics] bantered about by people who don't know jack shit about economic growth.
what does supply-side economics have to do with economic growth?

>Again, "supply side" is a buzzword.
I thought "trickle down" was the buzzword. Is it "supply side" now

It seems you just cant seem to win with economists... Some of the are triggered by "supply side". some are triggered by "trickle down". I guess maybe soon they'll have to come up with a 3rd term for the same thing...

>>9809045
>The absolute state of /sci/
These people don't belong on /sci/. They're not even interested in science.

>>9809126
>>>/reddit/

bump

>>9808312
Have you been to /biz/ lately? They should just rename it /crypto/. Granted, you could also call /sci/ /uni&IQ/ to be fair, but /biz/ is far worse.

Anyways economics is in fact a science, albeit a social science. It also relies heavily on mathematics, so therefore this subject belongs in /sci/.

That being said, if a cryptocurrency board is established, I'll gladly fuck off back to /biz/ to discuss economic related topics. It actually used to be a decent board before all the crypto trading shit went down.

>>9810456
ok ok. i guess you cant be as bad as the flat earthers, or the propulsionless space travel nerds.

dude econnomics never consider tech advances that why all is a mess, you cannot put in a formula the tech advances or the climate disaster and all th impredecible shit of the planet but you can predic one thing politcs because those are super slow, so economics works only if there are less people so paid vacinatyons for all people, taht shold work. and maintain the population in the same level.

>>9804855
>work gives things their worth

>>9810783
were you drunk when typed that?

>>9809042
If you genuinely think positive economics can be genuinely objective in totality I cant help you. Read more literature on the topic.

>>9811232
Powerful non-argument

>>9810924
>implying LTV isn't already proven

What the hell do they teach you at economic school? lol what? You don't study Marx? Absolutely pathetic.

>>9811443
>LTV
>proven
Lmfaoo, it's another episode of "humanities major thinks Marx was infallible." Jesus Christ, kid.

>>9799831
>top notch economy uni in my country (Hungary)

Is not and will never be a science
>>>/trash/

>>9811474
Heh. You called me kid.

Maybe you should read some real economists and hear what they have to say, you know, not just the neo-liberal idiots that your professors shove down your throat. Or maybe just keep sucking dick. I'm okay with that.

macro > micro

>>9810768
Cheers m8

Yeah the flat earther/propulsionless travel/IQ threads are pretty fucking retarded.

At the very least, economics can be considered an area of applied math.

>>9811605
why you think so

>>9799820
Unironically this. It's one of the dumbest fucking things that liberals believe - "Oh no well see my definition of property is apolitical."

It genuinely enrages me that trust fund fags who majored in the subject are so unaware of why people viscerally reject the conclusions drawn from what few laws the discipline can ascertain.

In general I found all my economics professors were intelligent, but also autistic and unable to teach - as a field of study it requires you lose so much of your personality pouring over graphs that it's surprising that it can be taught at all. They also were incredibly averse to explaining the history of economics and where the ideas came from (aside to passing references to Smith), and I've found that lack of historical context is something sort of endemic to studies outside of the humanities.

>>9804938
>this is what retards actually believe

the natural economy is based off of the calorie.

you put work in and burn calories to get the things you need.

the fact that we focus on money rather than food is out of sync with nature.

>>9805265
those that proabably have accuratly predicted the economy probably keep it under wraps as a "Trade secret" or some shit.

business and economics has so many professional traps and pitfalls.
and if they are on to something they are really afraid of it getting stolen etc...

>>9812776
History of economics and economic thought are taught in every economics program. Other than that your post was pretty shit

>>9812778
so retards are right once in a while

>>9801815
Exists at LSE

>>9812811
Every student of economics I've interacted with has had an abysmal understanding of history and more importantly philosophy, but I'm on /sci/ so I guess I shouldn't expect more than that sort of autism.

>>9799781
The "economy" is broken.
You can study the math aspect from it by learning math.
As for its foundations they need serious revision muchi n the way of what Wildberger is doing.

>>9813599
>As for its foundations they need serious revision muchi n the way of what Wildberger is doing.
pls gib example

Interesting thread. To anyone that studies econ, I have sort of a question. I've always been interested in quantitative finance on the basis that it seems quite complex and almost revealing of the human nature/behavior- is this a correct feeling to have or is quantitative finance rather boring and dull?

>>9815059
>quantitative finance
It should be called monetary anthropology.

Mods need to fucking ban economics from this board. It is not a science and never will be. It is impossible for economics to be a science because no feasible experiment can be run to test if the various hypothesis of economics are real. Until the day comes when proper experimentation can be done, economics will remain the province of mental masturbation for morons too stupid to do mathematics.

>>9815066
While I agree with your premise, I think that while econ necessarily can not be considered an axiomatic system that can be fleshed out like other scientific fields can, there are approximations that work in roughly describing economic activity.

This isn't even mentioning that in many of the studied of economics, there are maths of many kinds used, and so if not a science it can be considered an application of science and mathematics to meet some end.

Honestly I would be totally down with your suggestion- I'd be picking up the phone and calling Chinese moot- if we could also ban engineering on this board. But I don't think that'd fly too good.

>>9815066
wow settle down beavis

>>9815059
> I've always been interested in quantitative finance on the basis that it seems quite complex and almost revealing of the human nature/behavior
From my lacking experience, while the theory in quantitative finance is more complex than a simple financial analysis (reading balance sheets, making hypothesis and so on), I wouldn't say that it reveals the human nature. For pricing derivatives for example you can run a Monte Carlo simulation with a geometric Brownian motion and find the most probable value. You ignore a bit who is the manager of the firm, how much stockholders/creditors are protected and other stuff.
I find that corporate finance deals more with qualitative elements, but it also requires more time for making an “accurate” judgement about the stock value of a firm.

>>9815059
It is complex but I think the human nature/behavior aspect of it is explored in the studies of the financial markets in economics

>>9815059
It is fine but jobs are taken by math and physics grads not econ majors.

>>9812798
this
ecological economics when

>>9815072
>This isn't even mentioning that in many of the studied of economics, there are maths of many kinds used, and so if not a science it can be considered an application of science and mathematics to meet some end.

Equating Engineering to economics is a false equivalency. Engineering results are still based on the scientific method. Economic results are based on mental gymnastics, data manipulation, and narrative weaving. Mathematics is a purely cerebral endeavor and makes no claim to have basis in reality. Mathematics is true because it is self consistent. That it is useful for modeling reality is a happy coincidence. Economics however makes claim to model and describe the world. Yet it does so without the ability to test its hypothesis in a proper and controlled manner. Ergo it is not a science. The theories of economics, its applications, and all its ideas, are neither right nor wrong.

About to graduate with a Statistics degree.

Have literally only taken one lower division econ 1 class. But I think time series analysis and model building is rad as fuck. I have good grades - do I have a shot at any economic PHD programs or am I out of my depth since I haven't formally studied economics?

>>9808440
I threw up a little when I saw that first graph.

>>9816289
go for actuary certification

>>9816264
WRONG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics

>>9816289
Actuary cert and math PHD or try getting a junior quant position.
Most guys at my floor are physics or math grads and we have plenty of engineers.Econ PHD is much less in demand here than math PHD

>>9816534
where do you work? Where can i find quant positions?

>>9816394
Reread my post
>Yet it does so without the ability to test its hypothesis in a proper and controlled manner.
I do not care if they have done experiments. These experiments are meaningless because in nearly all cases, they do not have the controls necessary to make them valid.

>>9816642
Original anon who critiqued here. Honestly, I get what you're saying, and would agree that any scientific methodology that is applied to economic problems (that is to say, using the form of science not necessarily without all of the controls) will inevitably fall flat. Our understanding of all of the controls and factors, and the required understanding are so far apart that in the end all we will be able to do is create rough approximations, which is pretty far from physics, chemistry, and recently biology whose hypotheses can be directly tested.

However, I would then not make the arbitrary distinction that it's fundamentally different than engineering in this case. There is a distinction of degree, wherein the rough approximations of an application of engineering will more often than not match predictions for reality because of how hammered out the underlying science is that's used to generate the engineering. Yet in the end it's still a set of constructed axioms that are used as a reference to make some prescriptive, approximated guess at how what you're doing (economics or engineering) will influence the world in turn.

It's kind of like how I'm fine with Psychology being on the board, because while I don't think at this point in time there are enough controls possible to fully flesh out a psychological system (in fact, it too deals with a lot of really rough approximations), it still uses the scientific method to generate a rough framework that has some (not much in some cases) predictive power.

>>9804911
Bicycles are possibly the worst example you could have picked to support your point

>>9816729
You conclusively figured out bikes finally?

>>9809004
>>9804328
Economy btfo by ecology in terms of complexity

>>9810924
>spanner and ore the same material
>it requires work (read: energy) to shape it
>this process happens on many different levels
>energy cannot be destroy, but useful energy is constantly decreasing

Have you never taken a therm class?

>>9816740
It's a device that was engineered with purpose. The various iterations of bike were due to limits in materials and production methods, not trial-and-error style design

>>9816763
I think he quite obviously meant that the functioning of the bike still eludes us even though it's a completely manmade object

>>9800039
How can you fucking derive something that depends on variables you aren't even looking at? Are economists this retarded?

>>9816776
what?

>>9816767
>I think he quite obviously meant that the functioning of the bike still eludes us
Maybe if you've never seen a gear before. Do you actually not know how a bike is built and functions?

>>9816780
low iq post

>>9804568
what if everybody decides they don't need a spanner anymore? value doesn't exist outside the context of individual interactions

>>9816782
>tfw you have too high of an IQ to understand bicycles

>>9811489
>>9811443
suppose you spend all day shovelling dirt from one ditch into another

then you spend another day shovelling it all back

what value have you created? Or better yet, suppose you have created a beautiful statue, but nobody wants it. Or you have a mountain of gold but you're the only person in the world.

Value is a purely subjective measure of how much you want something. Anybody trying to find some objective model for it is a moron.

>>9816780
>>9816785
Why are engineers such brainlets?

>>9816786
But Marx directly addressed this lolwhut

>>9816789
And how did he address this? I have never seen a valid counterargument.

>>9816789
lmao dude

>>9816787
>"You picked a bad example to represent your point"
>"Nuh uh! You don't understand!"
>"No, I mean your example is not representative of your argument and does not hold as a metapho-"
>*Autistic screeching*

>>9816795
You got issues son

>>9816800
Too true. I'm too low IQ to be dumbfounded by bicycles and so the other kids don't like playing with me

>>9816804
>the other kids don't like playing with me
lmao i don't doubt that part

>>9816807
>tfw you're too high IQ to realize you're the other kid
You don't have to doubt it

>>9816808
i love toying with you, maybe if i keep you company here you won't go elliot roger mode

>>9816812
>he thinks I won't take the obvious bait
Your going to need to step up you're game if your going to try to troll me

>>9816786
>what value have you created?
none, but you have expressed whatever value inspired you to dig the hole and fill it back up. Maybe you planted a seed in between and you'll reap the harvest later. Maybe you dropped in a body and so prevented the spread of disease or it's untimely discovery. Maybe you fill it up with a different kind of dirt for a variety of reasons such as agriculture or construction. Maybe someone offered to pay you to dig a hole and fill it back up and you wanted to get paid

>>9816791
Well, you define various types of value. Exchange value, labour value and use value. Those are not even Marx's inventions, Ricardo and Smith also used them. Exchange value is the monetary price (the ratio of exchange with respect to other goods). Use value is more abstract and complicated to define but in few words it's how 'useful' the commodity is to 'society' (this is far from the actual definition, which is more rigorous, but it gets the idea across). Labour value is the average socially necessary labour time, ie. how much time it takes on average to produce the commodity. Obviously these three can 'not' match up in certain cases, and the fact that they don't match up in doesn't disprove the LTV because the LTV can easily explain that mismatch, in fact, in any Intro to Classical Economics class you will learn about this in the second or third lecture lol

Maybe you should at least try to actually read Das Kapital? Or at least watch some lectures on Classical Economics readily available on YouTube. Your misconceptions are very basic my dude.

Austrian economics

>>9816834
https://youtu.be/hy8y2CCGcwo

This series on Capital is pretty good. Everyone on this thread should check it out.

>>9816786
This is called the MudPie argument and the series posted here >>9816844 addresses and refutes it in this episode

https://youtu.be/UltE6U4t8Vc

>this commie shitting up every other thread
>>>/x/ or >>>/pol/ it's up to you

>>9816909
>a scientific theory is somehow /x/ or /pol/ related

>>9816834
>if I come up with arbitrary categories it's totally science
The exact same stupidity as dividing history into discrete stages. You're approaching to the whole issue ass backwards.

Value is a relative parameter that exists during a decision making process. Objects have value when you have to compare and decide which one you want/need more. This value comes from some expectation of a future reward, be it some immediate use or the belief that you can exchange it for other things further down the line. You always weigh the relative cost/benefit. There is no fundamental distinction between "types" of value and no way to assign absolute value to anything. A pile of cash is nearly worthless compared to a bottle of water if you're dying of thirst in the desert.

This is yet again a case of brainlets being distracted by purple prose. Karl Marx is an excercise in obfuscating logical fallacies in long winded semantics.

>>9816962
What a brainlet. They're not aribtrary categories, and the 'value is subjective' argument has no scientific basis meanwhile LTV does (and has been proven scientifically many times, and disproven scientifically zero times).

>>9816968

>>9816968
>LTV has been proven scientifically
what

How? Give me a proper citation so I can see for myself. 500 page philosophical ramblings by NEETs don't count.

>>9799831
>>9812811
>>9813582
I've found the same exact thing at a decently rated economics program in the US (NY, specifically, where all things economics/finance should be at least somewhat professionally done), and can confirm Economics education really sucks. Did an undergrad and began a grad degree in Econ, and after 5 years of never going actually deeply into anything math-related or into the history of ideas (i.e. things not bullshit), I gave up and ran to quant. finance.
>>9815059
Quant finance doesn't go into human nature anymore than a *good* Econ program would (if it exists, and I assume at least a couple do). However, it does focus on complex, hard math routinely which gives a robustness to learning it that I'm afraid standard Economists don't, which allow a clearer look into human nature, if that makes sense.

>>9816962
Just watch this dude, it completely destroys your strawman.

>>9817006
>[1] "The Scientific Status of the Labour Theory of Value", W. Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, IWGVT conference at the Eastern Economic Association meeting, in April, 1997

A study in Sweden confirming the results in [1]:

>[2] "Testing the labor theory of value in Sweden", David Zachariah, Online at: http:/.'realitv, gn. apc. org'econ. DZ articlel. pdf (040422), 2004

A multi-country study confirming the results in [1]:

>[3] "Labour value and equalisation of profit rates: a multi-country study", Dave Zachariah, Indian Development Review 4 (1), 1-21, 2006

>>9817037
I meant to cite this >>9816879, watch that video.

>>9816962

You are full of shit. This is the kind of sophistic reduction that irks me.

The value in a monetary system has nothing to do with "the comparative value of trade items". That is a lie.
The only value there is is compared to the money which has become the product with the most value in the system simply because it can be exchanged for anything.

The medium becomes the message, and the story completely changes. Any reference to the old story of "value" is an equivocation.

Money is not an intermediary.
It is not an IOU that disappears.
It is sold for more money that creates more.

Therefore, it is an Autoproxy to itself.
Worse, the Money Space is a Divergent Space that always sources, and never sinks.
In the Macro, it is non-ergodic, non-conservative, and impossible to assign an algebra to it or even a topology.

In the micro, it is a system of exploitation - a Non-Martingale game, where the winners have a greater chance of winning.

Capitalism isn't even a Market Economy anymore. The Capitalistic market does not choose, make efficient, reduce scarcity, avoid surplus, or any of the things a market can do.
It is a scam, a pyramid scheme, a chain letter, a shell game.
Until you take away the ability to diverge the system:
#. no individual can get interest from money
#. no individual can sell or buy the means of production which is not a product.
#. no individual can rent, which just extends the sale indefinitely.
#. no individual can pay a wage, which is just inventing a secondary market that has nothing to do with the product market;
...there will be no "fixing" Capitalism.

>>9817046

and there will be no economic story that is distinguishable from a pile of shit.

>>9816968
>they're not arbitrary categories
What are they then, you fucking moron? Somebody came up with broad terms to describe different ways in which something can be seen as having value, but that does fuck all to change the meaning of "value" itself. You're deliberately veering off into semantics and category autism and distancing the discussion from the real world phenomena you are trying to predict.

Value is an abstraction. It does not exist as something you can directly observe. It's a term invented by humans to describe certain complex patterns of observable things. It doesn't even have a precise definition that everybody can agree on, so trying to claim it is something you can objectively quantify is retarded. You are trying to predict the actions of individuals, or the aggregate effect thereof. The construct of "value" is just a crutch to that end. First you need an model or the actor that is being analyzed. A human or a similar type of actor has some sort of internal model of the outside world and a reward function of some sort it uses to decide what manipulations it wants to perform to its environment in order to maximize reward. The "value" of some action or thing to the actor is a function of the effect it would have on this reward, be it direct or indirect. It can get compounded this way (x has value because I can exchange it for y which will let me do z which will...), but that doesn't change the basic concept. You can have things the value of which is tied to how others perceive them, but at the end of the day it all comes back to you, the monkey, trying to get that dopamine shot.

You can get lost in beautiful internally consistent abstractions if you want, but the goal of any kind of science is making predictions about the real world. Your model can simultaneously be completely logically consistent and a horrible approximation of the real world. Mathematicians and philosophers always seem to forget this simple fact.

>>9817046
See >>9817046

You are a brainlet who's lost track of what it was he was trying to do in the first place.

>>9817061
Lol I meant see >>9817058

>>9817058
Look dude, it doesn't matter if the categories are made up or not, every field of science does that and I don't see you crying over that. The ultimate point is that if the theory's predictions are empirecally proven (see >>9817037 for some examples) then the theory is useful and has a good chance of being true. Doesn't matter how abstract the internal workings of the theory are, all that matters is that it can predict correct data.

>>9817046
>this guy thinks his sophistic word salad makes any sense

>>9817067
Theory isn't "true". It is just a function that maps some known inputs from the real world into some predicted unknown outputs, which you can then test against collected data and see if they match. Regardless of how deep and complex, it is always just grounded in unprovable assertions, whose only merit is their usefulness in making predictions.

LTV is bullshit because it makes some assumptions that clearly do not hold in the real world. Yes, it is entirely logically valid to define "value" as a property of some object that is determined by x, y and z. But that doesn't matter if defining value this way leads to shitty and inaccurate predictions. What I'm doing is taking a finer look at the elements of the system and observing the behaviour at that level before coming up with broad sweeping generalizations. When you consider the way the actors that make up an economic system make decisions, defining value as something that can have an objective measure, especially one derived from the providing side, is stupid. Whether or not a transaction takes place will always be contingent in both sides deciding the reward of engaging in the transaction is greater than the obverse. So value is subjective, even if it can get influenced by the aggregate of many decisions made by many actors.

>>9817109
Whether you consider it stupid or not the predictions made by the LTV coincide with the data so far. What gives?

>>9817118
>predictions given by LTV coincide with data
No. They simply do not. You can refute the whole concept with a simple thought experiment:
>A has x which has some LTV value w
>B has y which has some LTV value w
>A wants y, B does not want x, the transaction does not take place
That's it. The idea of value as a property of the object is refuted by something that happens billions of times every day all over the world.

You can try to predict some sort of average value, sure, but the idea of an absolute, objective value as a property of some object irrespective of the observer is retarded.

>>9817118
And do show me some data. I really want to see how solid some experimental results have to be to make somebody with an IQ above room temperature to literally forget that whether or not people buy something depends on whether they want/need it or not.

>>9817130
Lol okay, there's no point in keep arguing. I even linked some studies ffs, but you just keep strawmaning.

>>9817139
Dude I literally pasted 3 citations above >>9817037

>>9817140
>strawmanning
I haven't strawmanned anything. The fundamental bullshit assumption in LTV is that value is determined by something that happens on the production side of an object, which is wholly and utterly retarded and takes insane mental gymnastics to believe.

Does LTV imply that if we found a hypothetical mine where we could extract ready-to-use spanners instead of iron ore, such spanners would be worth less than the other man produced spanners because they contain less labor?

/LEFTYPOL/, PLEASE STOP POSTING YOUR MEME ECONOMIST EVERYTIME YOU LOSE AN ARGUMENT.

>>9817058
>You can get lost in beautiful internally consistent abstractions if you want
The concept of value-form doesn't even accomplish that much, as it is mired in the transformation problem.

Reminder that economics is as much of a science that voodoo is, there are no empirical evidence of demand and supply curves

>>9817379
No, it implies that the market price for spanners would go down (by how much depends on how many ready-to-use spammers you found).

>>9817444
Isn't this what would happen in reality?

>>9817461
Exactly.

>>9817510
So then labor is not the common factor in value.

>>9817146

LTV isn't even originally Marx's idea. Adam Smith talks about the different types of value in A Wealth of Nations.

Plus everything ever written by people is an abstraction so your criticism of the LTV in that regard is moot.

>>9817526
The average socially necessary labour time is.

>>9817526
No, it is. The price for goods is in the effort used to create it or the difficulty to obtain it, not in it's use.

Water is perhaps the most useful commodity on Earth. Just today I washed dishes, showered, brushed my teeth, and hydrated myself all with water, yet it's still cheap. If I had to pick between having no gold and no water, I'd choose to not have gold, since in use water is much more valuable to me.

However, water is much cheaper to buy then gold. Why? Because it's common and relatively easy to obtain.

I legitimately want to run the following experiment:
replace all the currency with chocolate coins. Would people be able to resist eating them? Would it cure inflation? Obviously they are magical coins that don't melt for the sake of this experiment.

>>9817547
Isn't that just the average time-input for a commodity according to Marx? I thought it was supposed to be related to the "labor-power."
>>9817554
>The price for goods is in the effort used to create it or the difficulty to obtain it, not in it's use.
I thought that, according to Marx, the price emerges as a union of the "exchange and use values" and is a distortion of the "objective relation of labor to the mode of production" under capitalism. It's almost like his theory is obscure to the point of being untenable.

>>9799781
Its like an economists refuge. That's ok desu. But if /pol/ wasnt such a cesspool, you should be there.

>>9817559
>Would people be able to resist eating them?
I bet lardasses wouldn't. Inflation isn't a problem in developed countries

>>9817572
I haven't read Captial, only the Communist Manifesto.

The example I gave is due to Smith.

>>9817726
Absolutely no school of economics believes in an unaltered Smithian LTV, not even Smith himself.

>>9817748
>Absolutely no school of economics believes in an unaltered Smithian LTV, not even Smith himself.

Um, wouldn't whatever Smith believed be 100% Smithian by definition?

>>9817785
Smith remarked several times in his writings that defining labor to be the central factor of value was limited in scope, and that there was likely multiple separate factors or a more fundamental property involved in the determination of value.

>>9816838
nobody took my bait :(

>>9817559
interesting idea, but isn't deflation a problem too?

>>9816534
I'm absolutely not interested in being an actuary. I want to do research in building statistical models, not calculate risk for a company. Do people only study economics for a job in industry?

>>9818184
what was the bait?

>>9818206
go for the phd my dude

>>9817840
Ok, fair enough. In that case I misrepresented Smith's views, Smith can't disagree with himself.

>>9818970
To be fair, Smith did use a strict labor theory of value in his writings. It was just that it was the only theory readily available to him at the time, since the Salamanca school wouldn't be rediscovered for another 50 or so years.

FOOKIN BUMP

>>9799781
The only people who place economics as a science are Marxists, and there's ample evidence to prove that Marxist economics don't work.

This triggers the ancap

>>9821589
>imagine actually believing this

hey guys,
super sciency thread you got here.
that is all

>>9821603
except it doesn't

>>9799781
>no memewords
Lrn2meme fgt pls

>>9821603
>>9821861
it doesn't because it's a scam. check out stephen crowder on youtube and /pol/ threads for reference

>>9822114
>check out stephen crowder on youtube and /pol/ threads for reference

Is Linear Modelling (regression) unironically the hardest undergraduate economics class??

>>9810924
Do you even know that LTV was first elaborated by Ricardo, the exxxtra famous pro-capitalist macroeconomist?

Why do economists call austrian economics a joke?

>>9799781
What sources should I use to study economics for personal interest as a Mathematics graduate?

>>9823782
because they ignore empirical evidence if it runs contrary to their theories

>>9799831
That's some trash-tier economics program.