economics

[Anonymous No.10308489]

/sci/ always has basically 0 economics threads. why?

>/inb4/ economics is not a science
the economy can be and is very well studied, and any /sci/entist should know how to do his dealings in the greater market

[Anonymous No.10308496]

>>10308489
>>>/biz/

[Tuba Jam No.10308513]

>>10308489
Why don't you start an economics thread?
>>10308496
That's just cruel

[Anonymous No.10308517]

>>10308489
anything past bio is more philosophy or other humanities than science. Economics has physics envy, just using a bunch of math isn't sufficient for something to be scientific. The very fact "normative" economics can exist relegates econ to something else.

[Anonymous No.10308565]

>>10308496
You piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.10309074]

>>10308489
>take intro to macro economics
>first day in class
>professor walks in late
>high as fuck
>fumbles with the projector
>grabs the mic
>coughs
>"hehe, guys, what if, like, the Earth had infinite resources"
>yo check this out
>this is what happens when the Fed raises rates
>shows us a graph with inflation as the dependent variable on the y axis and the rates as the independent variable on the x axis
>can clearly see there is an inverse relationship
>he fucking draws a second curve to the right of the first curve
That's why we don't have econ threads. Because even though every single thing on earth is finite and can be accounted for, economists are still too dumb to figure that shit out.

[Anonymous No.10309081]

Why they no teach me compound interest in school? I could already be rich by now. Einstein says that compound interest is the strongest force in the universe.

[Anonymous No.10309147]

>>10309081
They did in mine. Is the exponential function not covered in hs in america? Lmao

[Anonymous No.10309160]

>>10308489
If economics is a science, why can't economists agree on the laws of economics?

[Anonymous No.10309549]

>>10309074
Because intro to macro/microeconomics are babby tier, yet people still manage to fail for whatever fucking reason. For the rest of the program you need to have calculus I-III as well as some probability and statistics courses. Also it's a good idea to learn some basic python and R.

[Anonymous No.10309552]

>>10308489
Jannies actually delete them.
I got a warning once.

[Anonymous No.10309576]

>>10309081
Jesus Christ, do you learn anything Useful in school?

[Anonymous No.10309591]

>>10308489
Economics is not a science, is suffering a severe replication crisis on the same scale that psychology is, is the most niggerish application of mathematics and game theory imaginable, does not account for externalities properly which for instance ecology and biophysics do account for and is wholly incapable of justifying fundamental concepts like rational choice, actors, supply and demand without making recourse to linguistic arguments or straying into other fields they have no training in, like behavioral ecology or genetics or evolutionary dynamics.
>>10309549
>For the rest of the program you need to have calculus I-III as well as some probability and statistics courses
You literally only need Calc 1-2 and every single STEM major takes statistical analysis.
>python and R
every single Bio and physics major who wants to do serious research knows one or the other or both.

[Anonymous No.10309605]

>>10309591
>replication crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_critique
>does not account for externalities property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#History_of_the_concept
>rational choice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
>supply and demand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Giffen good are honest to God proof of supply and demand. Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

[Anonymous No.10309666]

>>10308489
Being well studied /= science.

The works of Shakespeare are well studied. But Shakespearean scholarship is not science.

[Anonymous No.10309678]

>>10309074
>every single thing on earth is finite
>the stupidity of some economists

I refute you thus.

[Anonymous No.10309711]

>>10308489
If economics truly existed, people would be able to tell the future through trend-lines and candle diagrams. But since noone can do that just yet, economics is just educated guesswork.

Speaking of educated guesswork, is AI common in economics? For the longest time I've thought about training an neural network model which i train to produce 51% correct guessrate and then let it trade for me for some guaranteed monies, is this a thing? Does this work? Other people have no doubt had the idea before, but since it's sort of unheard of I suppose that it doesnt?

[Anonymous No.10309725]

>>10309711
>people would be able to tell the future through trend-lines and candle diagrams.
>noone can do that

Pic related, proof by contradiction failure.

[Anonymous No.10309726]

>>10309081

They teach you run away nuetron emission which is the same idea.

[Anonymous No.10309729]

>>10309711
>If economics truly existed, people would be able to tell the future through trend-lines and candle diagrams. But since noone can do that just yet, economics is just educated guesswork.
Kill yourself.
>Does this work?
No. Google efficient market hypothesis.

[Tuba Jam No.10309753]

>>10309711
>if Newtonian physics existed, people would be able to predict the results of roulette wheels and pachinko machines

[Anonymous No.10309854]

>>10309725
kek'd hard at that pic

[Anonymous No.10309879]

>>10309549
>science
>the highest level of mathematical maturity is calculus
pick one
>>10309678
If the earth has infinite resources, why isn't everything free?

[Anonymous No.10309891]

>>10309605
you didn’t read what I said, economics becomes a different field of study when they do “behavioral” economics and since behavioral science is itself not rigorous its extremely unlikely anything they derive will be rigorous or replicate. the first link has absolutely nothing to do with the fact most economics studies don’t replicate and are underpowered.

There is no proof of supply and demand, they’re incoherent concepts divorced from physicality. You could not prove them even if you wanted to, their foundation is not rigorous and is illegitimate as a concept in science.

[Anonymous No.10309961]

>>10308489
Patrician coming through

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulG5VRNycxY

[Anonymous No.10311070]

>>10309591
>the most niggerish application of mathematics and game theory imaginable
keked

[Anonymous No.10311090]

>>10308489
Economics is not a science
And business is boring

[Anonymous No.10311452]

>>10308489

Economic theories don't require empirical validation, it's not a science.

[Anonymous No.10311458]

>>10308489
Lmao what a brainlet op is.

[Anonymous No.10311515]

>>10308489
A large part of the problem with making economy a science is, economy is heavily dependent upon what people do, and people are sufficiently unpredictable as to render a scientific approach useless.

[Anonymous No.10311532]

>economics is not a science bro!!!
>lives in a country that has been guided by economic theory into a century of enormous propserity for all