[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

File: 45 KB, 743x1000, 61+eyBgV6rL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16177368 No.16177368 [Reply] [Original]

redpill me on economics, is it on par with math, physics, or engineering in terms of academic difficulty??

>> No.16177428

Nothing is on par with pure math in terms of difficulty
Nothing compares to stuff like algebraic topology or operator algebra
Pure math is sheer insanity even for those that pursue it

>> No.16178368
File: 1.00 MB, 864x1304, Blonde Leyley.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Economics is not nearly as difficult as math, physics, or engineering.

If you want to learn/understand economics, I recommend the following: https://cdn.mises.org/Man,%20Economy,%20and%20State,%20with%20Power%20and%20Market_2.pdf

It is long, but it is also comprehensive. Happy reading! :)

Pic unrelated.

>> No.16178385

M'rothbardian, a tip to you fellow gentlesir!

>> No.16178394

Bullshit aside, have you actually read this tome, taken notes, studied it? I can only imagine how massive this book must be physically.

>> No.16178403

Also forgot to ask, do you have any other recommendations? Maybe like a top 5 or 10 list.
What I was thinking of having a look at was:
>Lars Schernikau - Economics of the International Coal Trade: Why Coal Continues to Power the World
>Rolf Peter Sieferle - The Subterranean Forest (bit more philosophical)
>Joseph J. Wang - Central Banking 101
>Carl Menger - Principles of Economics (bit on "marginal utility theory" in particular).
>Eugen Bohm von Bawerk - Capital and Interest (all three volumes).
>Walter Bagehot - Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market
>Hjalmar Schacht - The Magic of Money (NSDAP economic minister, look into other publications as well).
>George Soros - The Alchemy of Finance (seems interesting, but also to juxtapose the former item on this list).

>Robert McNally - Crude Volatility
>Daniel Yergin - The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power
>Simon Watkins - An Insiders Guide To Trading The Global Oil Market
>Jim Rickards - Currency Wars
>Amin Saikal - Iran Rising
>Matt Simmons - Twilight in the Desert (his thesis was wrong, understanding his reasoning, analyze why it was flawed/why the cookie crumbled otherwise).

Pretty long list, sorry to overwhelm you haha. Let me know if you think any of these are dogshit and a waste of time, which are decent picks.
Thanks for the original reply either way.

>> No.16178449

Their models have a lot of math, a lot of them being repurposed physics models, but ultimately useless. Econometrics is the useful math in it.

>> No.16178460

It's actually pretty difficult. There's a ton of math and equations and models and graphs to learn in one course. But for answering exam questions you need to go beyond math and really understand the theory and how to analyze scenarios. You have to know to do math and also read a lot and write essays on a topic. It's more intellectually demanding than most people realize. I think I read somewhere A-Level Econ has one of the highest failure rates.

>> No.16178486

very good LARP list.
that's the list that you can post on BASED xitter and have a bunch of guys say WHOAH BASED to.
you're not gonna read even 1 of those in reality.

>> No.16178526

post some real academic literature on economics not this /biz/twitter/"alphamale" bullshit list that retards on wallstreetbets and altright faggots read in order to convince themselves they know economics

>> No.16178531

I don't see what makes any of these books a larp, nice projection you sad ass underachieving retard.

How are any of them alphamale books you retarded braindead NPC?
A third of them are academic publications, a third are more casual in nature, the final third recommended by people who work in commodities trading houses and actually make money, unlike you, subhuman dog.

>> No.16178534

Feel free to point out which in particular on the list triggered your little incel outburst so I know which of your buttons to push in the future. Point to me on the doll where the twitter groypers touched you.

>> No.16178535

>real academic literature on economics
That's the absolute worst way to learn about how economics actually works you mongoloid. They gave Paul Krugman the Nobel ffs

>> No.16178544

On the flip-side, what would you say is the 'best way' to learn it?

>> No.16178549

In economics the real problem is lack of data. You dont know whats going on out there, what companies exist, what they make, sell or at what prices. What do you know except a massive aggregate like GDP or a few short statistics? You have no data to input into any equation or theoretical model.
As for the theory itself, its extremely easy and most of it is wrong, its just random ideas of some jews put into equation form so that it looks like physics.

>> No.16178575

stay grinding with that 50 item unread economics reading list BASED alpha king. offering emotional support right now king. you are BASED.

>> No.16178579

>How are any of them alphamale books you retarded braindead NPC?
>A third of them are academic publications, a third are more casual in nature, the final third recommended by people who work in commodities trading houses and actually make money, unlike you, subhuman dog.

If you actually had at least 2 braincells left, you would know not a single accredited economics faculty on this planet recommends a single one of these shit-tier books you listed. Might as well list kiyosakis book as economic "literature' lmao dumbfag. Clearly shows you have zero academic education and are a HS dropout.

>> No.16178591
File: 545 KB, 1080x1080, IMG_9958.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>that list

holy shit

>> No.16178771

Rent free.

I'll trust the recommendations coming from the former TDP guys at Shell and BP earning over a dozen times the median wage, thanks.
No idea why you insist on mindlessly pedestalizing washed up deadwood academics.
See a bit of yourself in them, or maybe more than a bit? Is it possible for you to think for yourself without outsourcing your opinions based on the recommendation or absence of recommendation from this or that faculty?

For some strange reason, you and everyone else replying to me are yet to offer any specific counter recommendations insofar as literary sources are concerned, instead deciding to appeal to authority or pol strawmen. I wonder how you will reply to this post.

Notice how I went out of my way to avoid any and all of the books listed in the top row. Furthermore it isn't necessary to exclusively read people like Saari, Glasserman, Luenberger, Shreve, etc... without ever branching out into polisci surveys or personal memoirs.
Explain to me the purpose of learning economic theory if you never bother to apply it in any capacity whatsoever, or at the very least read about the nature of market dynamics in the real world, which some of the items I listed very much do...

>> No.16178897

The theory doesnt apply irl (thanks economics) so you spend that time data cleaning instead.

>> No.16179077

I did it, you're going to be dissapointed. in my cunt it was difficult alright, math heavy and more difficult than peers who did math (because my profs were cunts whereas their werent).
Just do math or physics if you're into this, those degrees are more appreciated in the finance and quant space anyways. "econometrics" is a scam for lazy midwits like myself who wanted to do math but didnt want to put in the work.

I still feel like I missed out on my passion (physics) and am thinking about going back to college for math/physics/math+physics or EE.

>> No.16179080

well the above row is non finction entertaining reading, not the actual scientific subjects.

>> No.16179184

>They gave Paul Krugman the Nobel ffs
There is no Nobel for economies.

>> No.16179218

This is can be a difficult read, I think most of the difficulty in econometrics is mainly avoiding Dunning-Kruger.

You need to invest a lot of time into understanding econometrics as an art form. Econometrics is more similar to programming than flat math work in my opinion. You'd be surprised by the amount of math students who flunk econometrics classes. They could never be bothered to understand the underlying theory behind the research questions and just applied pure math to every situation.

Just like programming, people who are excellent at econometric analysis are extremely rare. There is a massive population of business grads who took one intro class and feel like they know everything, it's not necessarily something you can succeed at via pure autism. You really need to have a researchers mind and be willing to dig into a lot of contextual theory to properly plan studies and eliminate bias.

Arguably econometric analysis is as important as engineering, it guides pretty much all public and private policy. Our systems runs off of econometric inferences, and a lot of the retarded decisions made in society are due to a purposeful distortion of results.

If you understand econometrics you can objectively call retards consultants out all throughout your career and provide value by being a contrarian. You can also rip apart a bunch of social science papers when you feel like being an edge-lord.

>> No.16179220

most everyone is using simple linear regressions on data they dont understand. I was like this too until I went back to school in maths. I am also irked by how consultants, develolers and politicians just project last years growth rates into the futura ad infinitum as if extreme events never happen or as if rates arent random. truthfully the woest plague of them all these days is the ai craze, where "programmers" and "data basedentists" will just chuck random colinear data into a model in python and claim to have godlike predictive powers(they dont).
imo to understand econometrics you need to be very balanced, you need to know your math but also to be anchored in real world intuition

>> No.16179233

econometrics uses a lot of advanced/contemporary statistics, it can be quite deep
"economics", not so much

>> No.16179242

Damn except for Menger, this is a powerful pop-econ reddit poster list, kind of impressive. Brother none of these will provide you more value than a high-school intro to econ textbook like "introduction to economics" by Mankiw.

Mengers writing on marginal utility is interesting from a historical perspective. If you just want a basic understanding of economic theory, read Menger, the "Wealth of nations" by Adam Smith, and "The general theory of employment interest and money" by Keynes.

If you want a solid understanding of economics you need to be reading university level texts. At the end of every chapter force yourself to answer all of the text questions only using the text, and write a 6-12 page report applying the theory to a real world situation to gain actual understanding.

The books you've listed are pop-econ, and will impress retards at a party if that's your end goal so be it. They don't actually provide concrete understanding. If you get questioned on any of these topics, you're going to freeze up and be unable to explain what you've just stated. There is some value to be derived from reading these but only for people that run small businesses or don't have any education.

If you want an understanding on commodity markets, you're going to get it very little form an ex-commodity traders self masturbatory writings. None of the trends or tactics they cover about are relevant in today's markets.

It's kind of like a programmer reading Sandworm or the Perfect Weapon. These books are interesting and make for a good story at a party, but you're not going to understand op-sec because you've read them.

>> No.16179244
File: 61 KB, 640x640, No makeup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>is it on par with math, physics, or engineering
Nope, it's above them.
The subjects you mentioned are studied by awkard ugly virgin nerds, while economics is studied by the likes of Donald Trump, David Rockefeller, Elon Musk and so on.
Pic related for example is a self made millionaire model who studied economics in Switzerland and had multiple investment banking internships

>> No.16179256

I agree, it really is troubling, in a perfect world the teams performing regression would be required to have strong math skills and understanding of topical theory.

Sadly, we don't live in that world, just wait until ML becomes mainstream and the entire model building process is automated. We'll have even more biased, over-fitted models that magically have zero predictive power outside of the training data.

When i was leaving college they started transitioning econometrics classes to start with a zero math, model building unit that focused on bias, output interpretation, and the critical review of results. Which if you're not math inclined is all you really need to not get screwed by consultants.

I think it's a much better approach, it provides students with the ability to understand and plug holes in garbage regression without knowing the underlying math, and lets the more math inclined students apply themselves when they take advanced classes.

>> No.16179602

economists are king of the midwits
it is a field with zero predictive power that is just used by governments to justify elaborate schemes to steal money from the goyim
there is a reason they act very pretentious and get extremely dismissive if you ever question them

>> No.16179611

>Adacademic snobs proving how retarded they are in the replies yet again
Fine list anon. More underground but nonetheless practical & worth the read

>> No.16179623
File: 104 KB, 809x1080, Kim Possible Americana - Colourised.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

That is a long list. I'm not sure why you want to read so many books about oil. Economically speaking, oil does not function differently to any other commodity. It is differentiated only by its singular importance.

Regarding a recommend shortlist:
1. How to Think About Economics - Per Bylund
2. Austrian Economics: An Introduction - Steven Horwitz
3. Man, Economy and State, with Power and Market - Murray Rothbard
4. What Has Government Done to Our Money - Murray Rothbard

I'd say that's basically the whole ballgame (read in that order). Obviously, you can read works from other schools like Marx's 'Das Kapital' and Keynes 'General Theory', but these works do not-- in my opinion-- teach the truth.

>> No.16179631
File: 241 KB, 1500x2000, Man, Economy and State, with Power and Market, 2nd edn, Scholar's Edition - Hardback Copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The physical single-volume 2nd edition sold by Mises Org is actually delightfully compact (pic related).

As for length, if you prefer, you can simply read the Study Edition. It is about a 1/5 the length, and covers all the essential points:

>> No.16179632
File: 1.77 MB, 1957x1764, Cirno Stacking Silver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Thanks, bro.


>> No.16179694

Ofc, it seems I've accidentally implied that the list is supposed to provide anything other than a very vague polisci survey (if that). There're maybe, what, 3 academic publications on the list that approach the subject from a theoretical basis?
Decided not to include any quantitative resources such as Saari's introduction, Shreve, etc. Clearly that decision was a mistake considering how many people got pissy.

As for the few recommendations you've given, they're also on my expanded list, though I didn't bother sharing them since I'd (evidently wrongly) assumed that they were implied to be the obvious choices that everyone knew of, at least vaguely having heard of 'Wealth of Nations'.

>If you want an understanding on commodity markets, you're going to get it very little form an ex-commodity traders self masturbatory writings. None of the trends or tactics they cover about are relevant in today's markets.
Didn't expect them to be up-to-date whatsoever, was interested more-so from a 'historical' perspective. Obv should be taken with a grain of salt.

In spite of being outdated, I imagine there must be some intuition that could be developed from reading them to form the basis for an 'updated' understanding. That was essentially the predominant goal.
Appreciate your criticism.

I imagine it functions differently at least w.r.t. storage and transportation, no?
Appreciate the reply.

>> No.16179968

>most everyone is using simple linear regressions on data they dont understand.
You wish, because theres barely any data/ Getting data is the only problem in economics

>> No.16179971

Not that anon, but I suspect you'd probably get more helpful replies by explicitly stating your objective(s) in curating an economics reading list, so that people can suggest recommendations that best meet those specific criteria and maximize your subjective utility. For example, something like:
>I want to be able to read articles in economics journals (follow the standard undergrad curriculum)
>I want to know how economists use data to make policy prescriptions in business/government (as above + emphasis on econometrics)
>I want to understand how the economy "really" works (read all the classics from each school, neoclassical as well as heterodox)
>I want to be able to debate economics with people in informal settings (same as above, though if your opponent studied university-level economics, it helps if you have too)
>I want to know how to make lots of money (wrong subject, read business or finance books instead)

>> No.16180069


Your list is peak normie. Its like what a 1st year business admin major would read. None of it is economics. It's mostly pop science and popular history/geopolitics. Reading memoirs by people like Bill Clinton and Ben Bernanke I not an effective way to learn econ. These are the types book they sell at the airport fo midwit yuppies and le boss women.

If you want to study actual econ, you need someone mathematical maturity and knowledge of calculus, real analysis, an stats. Then you can start reading some micro econ and game theory books. If you want something a little less quantitative, you could learn some behavioral economics though Tversky, Kahnemann, Gad Saad, etc. If you're interested in something a bit more scientific and mathematical but not a full blown textbook, then something like Ken Binmore would be a good plac to start. He has some books that are very rigorous and sophisticated, but which presents the ideas in a much less condensed manner than a textbook, with a lot of background information and discussion of historical and practical questions about the theory.

>> No.16180086
File: 250 KB, 582x530, 1715791093958435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>All that pop sci slop
>>Whining about muh pol
>These are the same people pushing neoliberal politices and constantly complaining bout muh conspiracy theorist and muh antisemitism on the board

As usual, the pop sci normie is self-righteous, overly confident in their own intellectual abilities, and completely misinformed about actual academic scholarship.

>> No.16180092

Milei specifically said he would cull the useless eaters, said they should get jobs (while quoting the old testament). Things are looking good for productive argentinians.

>> No.16180121

Milei is a Zionist neocon and lolbertaian. He's about as based and redpilled as Bolsanaro or Trump or Zelensky or Bibi or any of the other kosher conservatives that normie right wingers like to support.

>> No.16180136

I wasn't the one who whined about 'based xitter right-wingers' in the first place, LRM deadwood academic dog.

Peak normie or not, it comes recommended from people who've worked in the industry for over a decade, and no shit they aren't rigorous textbooks. Obviously, reading Kissinger or Bill Clinton's memoirs will not educate you in economics, either theoretically or as an analysis of real-world dynamics... hence why they are not included. Other than that, I have all the requisite mathematical maturity, so I'll have a look at Binmore.

As for Kahneman, which of his publications would you recommend in particular?

>> No.16180163

You're criticisms of academic economics and the diffiuties with applying it in the real world are valid critisms, and a good chunk of economists would even agree. That being said, if you're not interested in economc theory and more interested in practical applications whether to be personal finance or public policy, then it would make more sense to post about personal finance. If you don't want people recommending econ theory, then you shouldn't be framing your question as a question about economics book. I guess its not really a big deal, I just think there as been a lot of miscommunication ITT.

>> No.16180205

Plenty of miscommunication for sure. I'm not op btw, just a different poster, I guess that only proves your point.
Anyways you're right in a roundabout way: I shouldn't have posted un-rigorous, (mostly) non-scholarly publications that I had been recommended under a post asking, at least implicitly, for academic works.

>> No.16180415
File: 333 KB, 546x568, American Foreign Policy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Oil certainly has unique properties, and it differs from other commodities in various significant ways. However, it does not differ in a way that is *economically* significant.

In my opinion, what makes oil interesting is the impact it had on strategic decision making from basically 1915 to today. It was oil that made the French and British so intent on eviscerating the Ottoman Empire. It was oil that drove the Japanese to launch the invasion of the Dutch East Indies and (corollary to that) commit to the Pearl Harbour attack. It was oil shenanigans that convinced the US to let the Shah get couped, and replaced with an ayatollah who promised to let the oil actually *flow.*

Fascinating stuff.

>> No.16180425

>Milei is a Zionist neocon and lolbertaian.
These are just labels. What hes actually doing is culling the useless.

>> No.16180548

The only thing this shabbos got is culling are foreskins.

>> No.16180578

economics is hard as engineering. If not in a shitty college.
economic theory relies heavily on calculus of variations, dynamic programming, optimal control theory and dynamic systems theory. which is hard obv.

>> No.16180581

hmph I assume you don't understand the theory behind it then.

>> No.16180588

pic is so true. midwits get filtered by the real books.

>> No.16180607

It seems like you just taken a shitty principles of econ class in highschool/unrestrictive elective to boost up ur shitty grades and assume you know all econ. same applies to any engi. dep. the problem with economics is whatever low iq nigger faggot like you could hold an opinion about it.

>> No.16180609

econ majors are completely fucking retarded. your average business major is less braindamaged
t. math bachelor's with a minor in econ

>> No.16180650

Here, no one here knows shit, I will redpill you on economics. I have a degree in Economics and Computer science. So, Metrics 1 and 2 is incredibly easy and just watered down stats 1-3 pretty much. The real classes in economics that are rad as fuck and very real are: Game Theory and Industrial Organization. Fuck every other Econ class besides those two. Game Theory can be hard at first if someone never dealt with game trees or game tables, but it is not that hard unless you go down the skitzo tier of game theory and get into auctions and shit(hardest math ever by miles). Then, in undergrad I took mathematical economics, and it was harder than calc1-3, differential equations, logic and proof, Matrix and linear algebra ect. The dude taught a grad school optimization class to pussies who never even took trig. That class was so insanely hard it is hard to describe. Literally Advanced calculus and Optimization for math grad students. It was funny, people got so cock when they did well and it is like "when people hear math econ, they do not know or care that the level of difficulty for that class is harder than any math class a under grad student can take". Fuck Ecoometics, that shit is a joke. Every person I remember from Econ undergrad was so shit at programming and they are trying to become data scientists. I was jn comp sci undergrad and they never understood why I got jobs with a undergrad degree, it is because economics is a fuck up major for people who are worthless and no amount of dogshit R or empirical analysis will ever compete with a CS degree. The best parts of econ are easily Game Theory and Industrial Organization. Every thing else is shit, except maybe portfolio optimization and CAPM,single index, efficient frontier, international trade shit. I will red pill you: Degrees mean nothing, get good at something fuck school, just get a degree to graduate. That is it and do not worry about it.

>> No.16180660

this dude is not a fucking moron larping hard. I know. A lot of people in grad school for electrical engineering borrow a lot from economics for RL with agents(mostly game theory) and utility(utils). And yes, economics is very intense in optimization depending on where you go. Yes, you understand, now leave this website because it is filled with braindead vermin who are uneducated fucks who are larping so fucking hard about math and engineering. Fucking math battle me anyone and I will fucking dismantle you. Fucking shit. This website is for fucking losers. "Is this degree bad" fuck you just do something and quit being a lazy pussy and having opinions that go fucking nowhere. I hate business students, but at least they do not sit around on the internet all of the time and waste their time. They actually try unlike most of you.

>> No.16181392

but why do you need to study it? if we have free economy, why bother to doo all that math to survey the markets? Except for immoral manipulation and speculation...

>> No.16181412

Not a science. It's the "science" of scamming others. Psychology is more of a science than Economics, and that says it all.
Even the Nobel prize on Economics is decided behind closed doors, without involving the panel of interdisciplinary intellectuals who assign all others. You can ask /pol/ if you want to know who's behind it and who's scamming whom.

>> No.16181414

working on my disertation project I was taking into accout using neural networks and I stumbled upon the idea that you should use them when you don't actually know how to solve the problem. I dont understand why "machine learning engineers" and "data scientists" act like hot shit these days

>> No.16181417

in economics maybe, in finance there is plenty of data. econometrics is applied in the stock and bond markets, in insurance in banking and so on, it's not just about economic policies

>> No.16181419

I had a course in quantitative microeconomics that was stupidly hard. I would have preffered to have a course in mechanics or some intuitive shit like that. utility and consumer functions are intuitive on the surface, but when you get into the advanced math it's pretty wild

>> No.16181441

isn't Das Kapital a better book for noobs in order to understand what is going on then those pop economics?

Also what about some stuff on financial instruments, as equities. something on interest rates.

>> No.16181452

I can tell you're a cringe retarded eastern european NPC wagie.

>> No.16181453

Fucking idiot...

>> No.16181457

>Game Theory and Industrial Organization.

First Russian Oligarch, Boris Berezovsky, had a specialization on Game theory.

>> No.16181463

Are there CS degree in eastern Europe, except Russia?

>> No.16181472

Code monke degrees exist everywhere lol retard vadim

>> No.16181473

Computer Science is not computer engineering.
not all countries have 6 years degree on CS program in universities.

>> No.16181689

>in finance there is plenty of data.
Such as?
Published financials of corporations in the stock market? You call that plenty of data?

>> No.16181691

Keep crying little baby

>> No.16181764

it depends strongly on your focus, but overall it's easier than math or physics, and at the undergraduate level it isn't at all close
some parts of econ are best understood as branches of mathematics but even within those it's probably easier at the phd level than physics, and definitely easier than math

>> No.16181772

tell me one part of economics or finance that is hard, in your opinion.
Game theory comes to mind, in that regards i want to ask if thats ever used for anything by economists or finance people, or if its just latched on for prestige, like QFT is.
Some idiot was telling me once that if you were to change all numbers in an economy by a constant factor, say "10", so now you earn 10 times more, everything costs 10 times more, debt is 10 times bigger, etc, it would make no difference in real terms.
Like changing the unit of account from dollar to cent, so just multiply everything by 100.
He said this was "a symmetry" and therefore just like quantum field theory, since QFT also talks about symmetry

>> No.16181785

Protip: Economics as a "rigorous" evidence-based field is only 50 years old so disregard anyone recommending you older books unless they're something timeless like statistics or math. Austrian "economics" is as legitimate as Marxian "economics" and is based on outdated texts that are treated like the Bible.

>> No.16181805

>Game theory

Any big company uses game theory to determine for example the amount of R&D budget compared to its competitors and how the amount of R&D affects the companies revenue and the amount of R&D its competition is going to invest in response. Cobb-Douglas is also used in conjunction with langrage multiplier to determine the optimal amount of capital and labor needed to maximize production and thus maximize revenue of a company

>> No.16181872

game theory is a good example of economics-as-mathematics and is pretty widely applied
"economists and finance people" is not actually a natural category, any more than "mathematicians and accountants" is. finance is a radically different field and career path
>Some idiot was telling me once that if you were to change all numbers in an economy by a constant factor, say "10", so now you earn 10 times more, everything costs 10 times more, debt is 10 times bigger, etc, it would make no difference in real terms.
>Like changing the unit of account from dollar to cent, so just multiply everything by 100.
in general talking to idiots is a bad way to learn about a field
if you can only find idiots that's suggestive but it could also be your fault

>> No.16181963
File: 54 KB, 1200x800, 64af88c4f17b4f442e388d4b6d02a545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The top of the list made millionaires; the bottom of the list made???
>you need to be reading university texts!11!!1
When did this psyop start rearing its head?

>> No.16181988

>Any big company uses game theory to determine for example the amount of R&D budget compared to its competitors
Give me more details on this, it sounds like a lie economists say to sound smart. Like none of them ever used game theory but just like to talk about it. Still, i will change my mind if presented with evidence. Give me examples of decision making in real companies that use these methods
>in general talking to idiots is a bad way to learn about a field
This person was defending the alleged use of QFT for finance
Also explain to me why you think finance and economics are radically different. Finance is to me at its core about allocating resources to the most promising uses, and i say this in a general way, not talking specifically about the particulars of some bank. The banker is a sort of judge that makes economic decisions about what to do with real resources and labor, regardless of some other abstraction. That sounds like economics to me, except for the fact that economists can be more academic while financiers are usually practicing their trade, it sounds less serious for a banker to just be a pure researcher, and economists also deal with "large scale systems" that are not the focus of a banker, but i still see a lot of overlap.

>> No.16182040
File: 358 KB, 1179x931, IMG_8730.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>The banker is a sort of judge that makes economic decisions about what to do with real resources and labor

Thanks for proving that you are a complete retard that has absolutely zero idea of economics. You don’t even know the role of a bank in the circular flow model of neoclassic economics. Now go take your popcult wallstreetbets books and fuck off and let people that have an actual academic education from an accredited institution in economics, discuss real economic literature.

>> No.16182179

this problems sound like they can be solved in a couple of rows in excel, it's not you can very accurately test this things against data, doing regressions is better (marginally, no pun intended)

>> No.16182180

well the idiot probably did not get the idea and he surely explained it in a bad manner but caeteris paribus he is correct. technically prices are relative and determined by the interaction between consumption and production or output if you prefer that term

>> No.16182186

financial time series data, quantified news article data, economic data. there's so much data these motherfuckers are using tens of tousands of columns in their bullshit nn models these days and they somehow work

>> No.16182207

>A-Level Econ
Isn't that just the Bongistani equivalent of AP courses (IOW, classes you don't need to take to graduate from high school, but that people still take so they get an edge in university admissions)?

>> No.16182313

book recomendations for game theory, preferably applied in trading and finance? apparently jim simmons made some shitty model before liasing with a game theorist mathematician. I have read that game theory was pretty big in trading up until 2008, but these days the paradigm has shifted towards looking at other "big data"

>> No.16182638
File: 63 KB, 717x1080, images (13).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16182918


>> No.16182937

there is no such thing as difficulty, only having learned the necessary framework or not. Learning a new framework is always painful.

also economists are complete retards

>> No.16184019

I might wanna take Industrial Organization, how is that?

>> No.16184029
File: 5 KB, 220x218, pipocrying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

She was brutally raped by an ugly as sin jew.
Hopefully she will get her revenge.

>> No.16184477

>it is a field with zero predictive power
This is because Economics is in fact more difficult than Math, Physics, or Engineering.

>> No.16185099

It is hard, it is not easy.
It starts with:
*price discrimination
*oligopoly: Bertrand, Cournout (homogenous goods)
* product differentiation (Cournot and Bertrand)
* Anti-Trust
* Horizontal integration and mergers
*vertical restraints
Where ever you go may involve game theory, but, Bertrand and Cournot models are in game theory(even though it predates game theory).so, you need to learn those and they are very very fun.

>> No.16185123

On graduate/phd level it is mathematically relatively demanding. You need to have solid understanding on real and functional analysis and probability theory.

Ignore these popsci redditors

>> No.16185212
File: 4 KB, 505x572, nobrain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16186396

>financial time series data,
Data about what, nigger, i specifically asked you what data and you answer "data"
>quantified news article data,
So data
>economic data
So data.
Ok so you dont know shit stupid impostor

>> No.16186398

>it is a field with zero predictive power
It doesnt have predictive power because theres no data to input into models. You are talking about theories in the dark, imagining imaginary ecomnomic models and economic actors, you will never gauge what people do in the economy so you cannot check anything.