Has anybody read this book?

[Anonymous No.10019891]

I bought the newest edition couple a week's ago.
Apparently economists became butthurt after the author called them out for following dogma, and common convention not expanding into other forms of maths like complexity theory.

They got especially annoyed when he said supply and demand curves are essentially pulled out of thin air.

The guy is a mathematician but they called him out on not having read past introductory economics book.

[Anonymous No.10019897]

Seems to be a high IQ trap that people fall into, they can solve the most complex problems but the simple nature of economics eludes them entirely. The same reason intellectual commies exist.

No sense of what human nature is.

[Anonymous No.10020018]

>>10019897
2 tru

[Anonymous No.10020032]

>Just another no one who actually works in the field of econ listens to me because I don't understand modern econ and how hard it actually is but i'm going pretend that i do without any self-evaluation and call them dogmatic anyway because projection is easy and it stirs up drama and makes it sound like my argument is actually legitimate since populous opinion and other armchair economists are just as retarded as i am episode.
checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.10020052]

>>10019891

I agree that the overuse of Linear Regression modeling in academia really does more bad than good. I also agree that Monte Carlo simulations can be tweaked to fulfill whatever quota a company may desire.

However, most basic supply and demand models make sense intuitively.

>t. Former top uni econ major.

[Anonymous No.10020192]

>>10020052
>overuse of Linear Regression
Some bias is typically needed to gain more accurate results. As long as you're not starting off with garbage information that doesn't really matter, this isn't a problem. It's like telling the scientist to make sure he uses sterile test tubes.
>Monte Carlo simulations
Assuming perfect market efficiency is probably not the best thing to be doing for a thorough analysis. You really can't just look at a price and think all necessary information is baked into it - you're going to have to look at the health of the relevant markets as well. Monte Carlo simulations should serve as a general estimate though - something which is quick to create and analyze under a time crunch. Again, this is like comparing the differences between total factor productivity to average labor productivity. The former is going to be more accurate than the latter, but the latter is easier to track.

[Anonymous No.10020232]

>>10020052
He's against supply and demand based on how it's written in textbooks. He claims that it's all built upon false assumptions and even challenges the reader to find a single empirical evidence that proves the common understanding of supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.10020372]

>>10020232
>single empirical evidence
You are more likely to get into an accident in a local neighborhood, or more likely to look down at your phone when at a stoplight, than if you were going 70 mph on a highway.

[Anonymous No.10021246]

>>10020032
/thread