You will never be a real natural science

[Anonymous No.14644114]

You will never be a real natural science. You have no controlled experiments, you have no deterministic models, you have no predictive capability. You are a social science twisted by corporate funding into a crude mockery of the scientific method.

All the “validity” you get is approximate and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock your theoretical assumptions. Sociologists are disgusted and ashamed of you, Mathematicians laugh at your ghoulish adoption of their models in their basements.

Society is utterly repulsed by you. Hundreds of years of economic crises have allowed even innumerates to sniff out fraudulent models with incredible efficiency. Even your so-called game "theory" look uncanny and unnatural to a man. Your dependency on rational choice arguments is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a clueless high schooler enrolled in you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your econometrical methodology.

You will never be accepted. You wrench out a fake "Nobel prize" every year and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, yet again and again you fail to predict the depression creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you will ditch the homo oeconomicus, you will adopt Constructivist insights from Sociology, you will have a Feminist subdicipline and you will plunge into the cold abyss of Foucauldian discourse analysis.
Your academic colleagues spite you. Relieved that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment of being associated with you, they’ll kick you out of their buildings and give you offices and lecture halls right next to the postcolonial Linguists in a building coined after Karl Marx. Your scientific output will decay and your once lavish funding will vanish, and all that will remain of your legacy is a subdicipline of Sociology.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

[Anonymous No.14644119]

bravo
well said

[Anonymous No.14644138]

you use lot of funny words
>has pen and paper

[Anonymous No.14644332]

>>14644114
Economics is propaganda. Literally. Economists are hired by governments and banks to post facto explain why certain policies were a good idea. It exists purely to give legitimacy to pulling the money printer lever.

There's maybe some more niche parts of economics that are valid. The stuff that involves game theory. But these are purely theoretical subfield and don't actually inform standard economic theory, because the assumptions they need to make in their models are too strong.

[Anonymous No.14644359]

>>14644114
Nah, it ain't going anywhere. It's one of the oldest applications of math.

It's literally a mix of gambling math and civil planning math. The two oldest applied maths in the book. The problem with it is that economists aren't really hired to tell truths. They typically have a lot of money in things like the stock market because they are inherently gamblers themselves and know that if you talk bad about things, the markets go down.

The field I think if the ones studying and publishing on it were more closely controlled

[Anonymous No.14644366]

>>14644114
Economics is trivial: You make a product or service and then you exchange it for other products and services. There, i just taught you all of economics.

[Anonymous No.14644396]

It seems that the Americans have woken up
>>14644359
>>14644332
The problem is that economists are desperate to be viewed as real science because the theoretical foundations of standard economic theory are utterly pathetic and unscientific. Its unreal how long they could get away with it, but as others have pointed out, there are powerful interests at stake

[Anonymous No.14644521]

>>14644396
>theoretical foundations of standard economic theory
What are they, honestly? Studied finabce and have asked onecon forums why QE is okay and they just tell me to read mankiewz. So I did and he just says ‘easier loans mean more jobs!’ While ignoring price discovery and efficiency. Surely there are some axioms or something, or at least a definition of the standard theory.

[Anonymous No.14644542]

>>14644521
theres this meme called efficient market hypothesis thats not an actual statement of anything and you cant read in on economics books

[Anonymous No.14644568]

economics at its best is a grabbag of mostly-true aphorisms with semi-rigourous formulations

i think it's actually kinda underrated because all the parts of economics which are actually true have become part of the common knowledge

[Anonymous No.14644593]

>>14644542
Well yeah, but EMH doesn’t give me and foundation on why QE or interest rate intervention was ever a good idea.

[Anonymous No.14644626]

>>14644521
QE mainly works because people believe it works. The only reason that Japan could get away with it is that Japan is Japan and people/institutions have high trust in Japanese decision-making

Economics biggest pitfall is the stubborn refusal to ackknowledge that it is at its very core a social science. The best example is rational choice - including bounded rationality - which is a completely unscientific

[Anonymous No.14644636]

>>14644593
of course it doesnt because you cant read about it

[Anonymous No.14644724]

>>14644114
>You will never be a real natural science. You have no controlled experiments, you have no deterministic models, you have no predictive capability.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You have confused engineering (with its experimental and trial and error tinkering) with science which is about, duh - scientific theories. Making models (from plywood or using supercomputers) may be a practical problem-solving, but it's not science. Economists obviously have predictive capabilities; von Mises has predicted the collapse of communism already in the 1920s. And I am telling you now that printing money without restraint will end bad. For the society that is; assets will be funneled into the hands of the privileged few.
You have also chosen laughably inappropriate picture for your seething. Friedman was one of the honest economist scientists.

[Anonymous No.14644743]

>>14644626
>QE mainly works because people believe it works
But does it? Just because you have more jobs doesn't mean you have a good economy. Perhaps the interest rate intervention created lots of jobs for people to dig holes and production of food/liquor/prostitutes/electronic entertainment to service that labor. Great! Jobs and GDP measured nominally are up! But even a hint of thinking about that change in economy qualitatively should indicate that the real wealth of the nation hasn't improved.

After fucking with interest rates so long, how do we know if our agg output is actually an improvement to our society and condition? We've gamed the numbers and have no way to know.

[Anonymous No.14644774]

>>14644724
>about, duh - scientific theories
Science is about experimental confirmation of theories, another way of saying you can use it to predict the future.

[Anonymous No.14644776]

>>14644724
>Friedman was one of the honest economist scientists.
So you recognize most are crooks?

[Anonymous No.14644826]

>>14644114
>Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you will ditch the homo oeconomicus, you will adopt Constructivist insights from Sociology, you will have a Feminist subdicipline and you will plunge into the cold abyss of Foucauldian discourse analysis.

>when the fuming butthurt turns into obnoxious fantasy

Make sure there's whipped cream on my Frappuccino, okay, kiddo?

[Anonymous No.14644901]

>>14644776
Evidently. But you don't dismiss medicine as a whole discipline because they used to treat people with mercury in the past and they are still mostly happy with just feeding you with their inefficient chemicals instead of removing the causes.

[Anonymous No.14645297]

>>14644901
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.14645357]

>>14644396
>the theoretical foundations of standard economic theory are utterly pathetic and unscientific
Nonsense
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3167100

[Anonymous No.14645440]

>>14644626
>The best example is rational choice - including bounded rationality - which is a completely unscientific
Cows aren't perfect spheres so physics is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14645504]

>>14645440
Ridiculous argument

[Anonymous No.14645652]

>>14645504
Right

[Anonymous No.14646194]

>>14645652
Spherical cow is a cringe freshman joke, not part of physics.

[Anonymous No.14646905]

>>14644114
>Criticizes Economics as a science because human action is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy
>Posts Friedman

[Anonymous No.14647559]

>>14646905
>Fails at what it pretends to do
>Says its too hard, not fair to be harsh
>Says its working perfectly

[Anonymous No.14647714]

I am an Economist.
I agree completely with OP.
I have been published multiple times and my models always get used to determine the price of a commodity given the change in policy by dude bros working on wallstreet.
I have contributed nothing to humanity.
I will say that pricing is the most important thing humans have ever discovered and we get rid of price at our peril.

Go ahead and rape free market pricing though. I am sure it will work this time. You can go ahead and start blaming us economists when you stupid monkeys finally decide enough is enough.

[Anonymous No.14649401]

>>14647559

>there is no single equation that will define what a given body of land's coastline or landscape will be, so geology is a failure and a farce

[Anonymous No.14649651]

>>14647714
What do you say to this:
>>14644743

What would 'normie' economists say? I bring this up around educated people and the table just goes quiet like I've denied the holocaust and am too stupid or far gone to even argue with. But what would be that argument?

[Anonymous No.14649669]

>>14649401
You cant defend your cult with its own merits so you retort to retarded analogies. See, when a topic in science is not understood its just not understood and is declared as not understood. This is called being humble and knowing your limits. Economists just lie their asses off and are never right on even the simplest things.

[Anonymous No.14649740]

>>14649669
Only economists are able to defeat the economist cult.
>are never right on even the simplest things
because fighting analogies with exaggerations will get you nowhere.

[Anonymous No.14649772]

>>14649740
We defeat economics by hanging all economists

[Anonymous No.14649787]

>>14649772
Sure you will, with 90% of populations defending economists from you.

[Anonymous No.14649795]

>>14644332
Lol it is actually far worse. Economists do not get paid by the government to spread propaganda. Economists in fact, have deluded themselves to believe that their shitty abuse of math has any meaningful connection to real life economies. At least, if they got paid by the government, you could sympathise with them, but no: they are just delusional retards.

[Anonymous No.14649801]

>>14649787
>90% of populations defending economists from you.
Lmao economists are not pop singers. Nobody cares about economists. They are scum

[Anonymous No.14649803]

>>14644359
Classical economics is very different to Economics of today. What you are talking about is firm theory, which was fine, for its time.

[Anonymous No.14649809]

>>14649795
Some of them dont get government jobs but still push propaganda. They do it for free.

[Anonymous No.14649812]

>>14644521
Microeconomic theory is the foundation of all Economics. Mas-Colell covers the whole thing. It’s all bullshit though, but it’s a good exercise for formalisation.

[Anonymous No.14649848]

>>14644568
>all the parts of economics which are actually true have become part of the common knowledge
Other away around. Economists formalised a bunch of common sense, to make it look like their work actually means anything.

[Anonymous No.14650023]

>>14649848
What the fuck are you even babbling about. You obviously didn't even bother to skim through the Wealth Of Nations - and you are complaining like a pure retard who whines that "mathematics is a scam" because he's not able to count his change. Obviously you are being fucked in the ass on the daily basis by "economists" because you're to stupid to see where exactly the bullshit is in all their justifications granting popular legitimacy to the status quo.

[Anonymous No.14650109]

>>14649795
>they do it for free

[Anonymous No.14650138]

>>14650023
>Wealth Of Nations
Why the fuck would I read an Economics book written in 18th Century? I doubt Einstein read Aristotle or even Newton.

[Anonymous No.14650157]

>>14650138
Because you didn't fucking read _anything_ on the subject? Even the introduction?

[Anonymous No.14650167]

>>14649848
>>14650023
>>14650138
You know a person doesn't know shit about Economics if they think Wealth of Nations is necessary to read.

[Anonymous No.14650217]

>>14650167
And you know that you are talking to an idiot when he concludes that the statement implied that the read was necessary.

[Anonymous No.14650243]

>>14650157
I have read Mas-Colell, Varian, Mankiw, Acemoglu's Macro, Hirschman's Strategy of Development, Paul Rosenstein-Rodan Big push theory, Gandolfo's International Economics and Dynamics, Galbraith's poverty, bunch of stuff by Amartya Sen. You know shit that actually matters. I am not going to read fucking Euclid when I want to learn math.

[Anonymous No.14650268]

>>14650157
Adam Smith is not rigorous not nice to read about. His writing stile is dated, its as disgusting as reading the Canterbury tales

[Anonymous No.14650357]

>>14650138
>I doubt Einstein read Aristotle or even Newton.
lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.14650368]

>>14650268
Plus, he was like one of the earliest Economics. And Economics being a non-deterministic subject which heavily relies on criticisms, and gradual improvements, he was wrong about several things. If someone wants an foundation to Economics, they should read something like Varian followed by Samuelson's Foundation.

[Anonymous No.14650763]

>>14650368
You are much to preoccupied with this example. I was responding to a guy who said that economists were just writing down the common knowledge, and the single fucking most famous economic book in history refutes this.

[Anonymous No.14650803]

>>14650763
What part of Wealth of Nations is not common sense?

[Anonymous No.14650809]

>>14650803
Four you, evidently, none of it.

[Anonymous No.14650846]

>>14650809
If you have actually read the book, it should not be difficult for you to come up with at least one sentence of it that has not been evident to humans since Renaissance. Stop larping like you've read anything.

[Anonymous No.14650915]

>>14650846
Kek, the critique of Mercantilism was literally paradigm-changing.

[Anonymous No.14650929]

>>14650846
Are you even fucking serious. The critique of Protectionism is not commonly accepted to this fucking day. It is still FAR from "common sense" - thanks to "smart" terminology.

[Anonymous No.14650935]

>>14650846
Another moron who didn't bother to read the fucking book.

[Anonymous No.14650989]

>>14644114
The problem with economic theory is that it's ALL economic THEORY.

There is no economic truth other than; Gold and Silver are real money, a population saving a stable currency is good, a population spending an unstable currency is bad.

That's it. That's all there is to it.

[Anonymous No.14650993]

>>14650915
>>14650929
>>14650935
>muh Mercantilism
Free trade is better for consumers across Earth as a whole, but it is bad for the nation, reduces government power and terrible for infant industries, especially when gold was used, which is why protectionism was and still is enforced. Adam Smith didn't even get the point of mercantilism. Myrdal's theory of circular causation and other dependency theories, mogged muh free trade argument. If you had read anything beyond meme economics books, you'd know that.

[Anonymous No.14650997]

>>14650993
Yawn, I've already said that it's not yet common sense for you.

[Anonymous No.14651006]

>>14650915
Adam Smith was not the first to argue about mercantilism. Like thousands of philosophers decades preceding him have criticised. So it was quite literally common sense by that time kek.

[Anonymous No.14651009]

>>14644901
>and they are still mostly happy with just feeding you with their inefficient chemicals instead of removing the causes.
Yes we do, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.14651014]

>>14651009
I know, economics explains why. Not medicine kek.

[Anonymous No.14651071]

>>14651014
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

95% of economic theory needs to be thrown out, because it's quite literally money-changer, kabbalistic rune magic. Put a number down here and this % little rune with it, and now the economy has crashed.

Thx fed.

Why are you alluding to the idea that 95% of medicine shouldn't be thrown out, unless you're coming simply from a technical standpoint?

My point is that everyone in the medical industry today /deserves/ to have their research thrown out as bullshit because of their moral failings.

Hyppocrates required physicians not to accept money for their services in his oath. It's time we hold them up to an extreme moral standard no matter the cost.

Fuck around and find out, as b would say.

[Anonymous No.14651132]

>>14644114
What's with all the anti-economics threads all of a sudden? Was there a sun flare? Anyway economics isn't science but it's also not status quo shilling either like some people think. The economists who matter are independent researchers and aren't paid any different than any other researcher. In fact results in economics often run against the status quo. Your pic advocated for negative income tax and most economists generally agree that the tax system should be more progressive but that's still not happening yet. There are many examples of policies economists champion that aren't being implemented. If economists are status quo shills, they're doing a bad job.

[Anonymous No.14652114]

>>14650989
>Gold and Silver are real money
why though
just because primate brain likes shiny?
what a cool fundamental truth to have.

[Anonymous No.14652169]

>>14652114
It's not real money. Anyone can prove me wrong by trying to pay their groceries with bullion.

[Anonymous No.14653712]

>>14652114
Money must be:
>Divisible: Can be divided into smaller units of value.
>Fungible: One unit is viewed as interchangeable with another.
>Portable: Individuals can carry money with them and transfer it to others.
>Durable: An item must be able to withstand being used repeatedly.
>Acceptable: Everyone must be able to use the money for transactions.
>Uniform: All versions of the same denomination must have the same purchasing power.
>Limited in Supply: The supply of money in circulation ensures values remain relatively constant.
Gold is particularly better than fiat due to it's better durability and to being more difficult to counterfeit - thus better fulfilling money's function as a store of value. (Central banks are doing the counterfeiting by "increasing supply" at a high rate. Economics explains why people with the means and the opportunity to scam with impunity will find the motive to do so)

[Anonymous No.14653743]

>>14651132
/sci/ is full of neopositivists that suffer from the fatal conceit and dream of a top-down technocracy where da smartiest people make al da bestest decisions. A heterodox school that doesn't pretend to math where it doesn't belong will tell them their scientific socialism won't work. Which is funny because you'd think a science and math board would be the first to understand emergence and decentralized systems but no. Maybe they'll be great hope found in AI or post-humanists rather a bunch of academics who just like to jerk themselves off.

[Anonymous No.14653909]

Economics is a science because it uses the scientific method. Just because some things are difficult to get knowledge about doesn't mean that it's not a science.

[Anonymous No.14653923]

Economics is a science because it uses the scientific method. Just because some things are difficult to get knowledge about doesn't mean that it's not a science. Like other scientists, economists use models to convey simplified explanations of a complex world. For economists, these models consist of diagrams and mathematical equations that explain such concepts as supply and demand, and gross domestic product. Like other fields of science, economic models present a simplified version of reality. Just as an astronomer’s model of the solar system does not fully account for the complexity of the cosmos, an economist’s model does not include every feature of a dynamic modern economy. Yet, through their simplicity, economic models help illustrate how the economic world works.

[Anonymous No.14654219]

>>14653923
Scientists when they use model often discover something that often they would not have otherwise. Their equations are regularly applied by engineers to invent things we wouldn't have otherwise. What do Economic models do that is something even remotely similar? Just because you force in math into stuff does not mean you are automatically a scientist.
inb4
>but but muh models is used by stock traders
All the richest stock traders I know, do not use models. They find out about promising businesses through new and such. Besides, that goes into the realm of finance and quants.
>but but muh models is used by government
Yes, and they lead to disastrous consequences, when they do.
Adam Smith did not use scientific method when he explain the Wealth of Nations. Keyenes did not use scientific method to predict Great Depression. Rajan did not use scientific method to predict 2007 financial crisis; hell he didn't even study academic Economics. All the economists who actually achieved something aren't remotely close to scientists, and don't pretend to be.

[Anonymous No.14654865]

>>14654219
Math is just a tool used in models to explain certain economic behaviour.

>>14654219
>All the richest stock traders I know, do not use models. They find out about promising businesses through new and such. Besides, that goes into the realm of finance and quants.
The Black–Scholes model is used by traders as a baseline at least. Factor investing research (work by Fama and French etc.) is used by asset managers like DFA, AQR, BlackRock etc. All sorts of other research is used by governments and central banks. Your hatred for economics is irrational and silly.

[Anonymous No.14654871]

>>14653712
>Money must be:
>Random shit i made up
Money can be anything

[Anonymous No.14654881]

>>14653923
>Economics is a science because it uses the scientific method.
No they dont. They use narratives. All ecomomics books read like children books
>And then this happens and the consumer would do this and then the bank did that thing and its good
Or they go into physics mode where they ask you to do some "optimization" exercise with Lagrange multipliers as if you control an economy with a bunch of levers, nevermind that it contradicts their axiom of rational choices and personal freedom leads to the best

[Anonymous No.14654908]

>>14654871
In a shithole level economy you are only able to comprehend - possibly.

[Anonymous No.14654912]

>>14654881
False, econ models are models of aggregate human behaviour making certain assumptions. How will the average company behave if they seek to maximize profits? How will the average person behave if he seeks to maximize his utility? etc. These models aren't perfect, but they're often very useful and manage to explain a lot of behavior. But all models aren't like that. There're models that don't make assumptions that humans are perfectly rational and sometimes it's more useful to use those models. There's a whole field of study about that: behavioral economics, where economics use real experiments.

Economics is a real science because it uses the scientific method.