[ 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: 40 KB, 387x417, 1305742434840.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3278677 No.3278677 [Reply] [Original]

Hey economic science fags,
I've read somewhere that the fact that wealth is kept in a capitalist society means that it isn't being used even though it can be, and that a socialist economy would solve it, as well as state fractional reserve banking (but not as efficiently) or something along these lines.

Could anybody please refresh my memory and explain this all? Or am I completely confusing everything?

>> No.3278705
File: 89 KB, 468x714, Socialism_Would_Mean[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3278705

Whatever you read is socialist nonsense.

>> No.3278713

Stop reading Keynes.

>> No.3278730

>>3278713
Keynesian economics are the best economics.

>> No.3278744

Fuck capitalism, only good for the few.
Inb4 poorfag
Inb4 people that work hard get rich
It's all lies. There is always one person that makes it big and hundreds who get fucked. It's just not fair for a person to be guaranteed to succeed because their family is rich(George W. Bush). I'm not saying we need socialism or communism, but we do need equality and capitalism sure as hell isn't giving that.
Captch related: Awayst the: as in "Awayst the capitalist pigs."

>> No.3278781

>>3278744
lol poor fag asshole go away from /sci/ no place here babe

>> No.3278810

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_K8CL8HzFo

>> No.3278818

>>3278677
you're saying rich people would make a lot of money, buy expensive shit, but also save a lot of it as wealth and pass it down to generations etc...
so it would take a long time for that money to re circulate the economy, thus over time cause a depression.
yup, that's pretty much it. then wages would drop instead of economic downturn, since rich people gotta make money, and people would fight over shitty jobs whilst living in poverty - india, brazil, etc..

>> No.3278820

These threads are exactly why /new/ was removed.

If you retards continue to reply to this thread, /sci/ will be removed next. If you don't want that, stop fucking replying.

>> No.3278843

>>3278820
/new/ was removed because it became (again) new /stormfront/, not because of these conversations.

Besides that, economics is a science (no matter if sure doesnt looks like one) so it belongs on this board


u mad?

>> No.3278854

>>3278843
>implying this thread isn't /stormfront/

Your retarded ego is going to get this entire board axed, you selfish prick.

>> No.3278873

>>3278854
>implying this thread isn't /stormfront/

Yeah, obviously the left is Nazi.

>> No.3278875

>>3278854
3/10
or u mad as fuck

>> No.3278876
File: 317 KB, 1024x985, 1277435597143.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3278876

The conventional argument is that the rich invest their wealth in companies, loans to others, financial instruments etc. thus improving the economy. However you could alternatively have wealth more evenly distributed amongst the lower classes who would consume goods and services to directly grow the economy through increased demand.

The issue with having the wealth consolidated in the hands of the few is that they primarily invest in financial instruments which can cause sudden loss of capital and deflation in the event of an economic downturn. Conversely, when wealth is distributed more evenly the economy is less susceptible to financial shocks since the majority of wealth is in the form of consumer savings and demand.

>> No.3278889
File: 118 KB, 615x740, scithreads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3278889

Sage goes in captcha field.

>> No.3278895

I'm one of the few people who understands what OP means, and here's the solution:
Make every citizen's wage go to the state bank, and only give it to him when he/she wants to use it to buy something. Then, the state could use the money in the bank on public goals, and only keep a fraction the actual bank at any time - this fraction will be reserved to people taking money.

>> No.3278903

>>3278889
Economics is a SCIENCE. Even /new/ could understand it.

>> No.3278911

>>3278876

I would say that the problem is more like entrenched wealth. The wealthy make the rules, and they make it so that their investments don't come with risks. If they fail, they get bailed out, if they pollute, the taxpayer picks up the bill. They can't lose. And the common man can't join the club because it's full. And they must really fuck up to leave the club.

If it were a level playing field, then fine. Those among the wealthy who hoard will fall behind as their money loses value compared to the growth of the economy. Those who invest will have to run the risk of losing on their investments, but will also contribute to society. And those who have less will be able to succeed and join them.

>> No.3278916

>>3278895
>millions waiting in front of banks to get paychecks

>no

>> No.3279145

>>3278916
>no waiting lines as lots of bans are built

>yes

>> No.3279172

>>3278903
Economics is a science the same as sociology and psychology. Just because economics has numbers doesn't it make it any more imaginary.

>> No.3279177

>>3279172
What you've just said was incredibly stupid. To attempt and understand your stupidity, replace 'economics' with 'physics' in your phrase, and read it again.

>> No.3279179
File: 77 KB, 1280x720, c_the_money_of_soul_and_possibility_control-09-masakaki-eyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3279179

inb4 Financial District Jokes, where dealing in futures isn't a figure of speech

>> No.3279190

>>3279177
Nope. Physic experiments are repeatable. Economics experiments are not.

Unless you're telling me that physical constant change over time, then sure.

But I'm sorry to say, your basic numbers are bootstrapped by claiming value on something that's arbitrarily selected day after day.

Claiming economics is as empirical as physics is moronic.

>> No.3279206

>Nope. Physic experiments are repeatable. Economics experiments are not.

[citation needed]

>> No.3279219

>>3279206
Ok heres a simple one.

I drop an apple.

I'll drop it a million times.

How many deviations will you see in the rate of it's fall?

Now name a economics experiment that's repeatable in such a manner that it retrieves a basic fundamental force in nature.

I just need one really.

>> No.3279360

>>3279219 Why is Burden of Evidence on ME?

>> No.3279376

>>3279360
Oh I don't know..perhaps it's because you want to claim science without demonstrating science?

I don't really have to do anything but demonstrate that physics has an empirical basis.

Do you know any other way to gather evidence in an empirical manner?

>> No.3279394

>>3279376 Ever heard of LEDGERS?

Wait, are we speaking Micro or Macro? Anyhow, your experiments are just idealizations of repeats. Your apple falling makes it change shape and perhaps even mass if its juices start flowing. The temperature and insolation changes as time passes. The air is full of disturbances and currents. THERE IS NEVER AN EXPERIMENT THAT WAS REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME TWICE, ALL YOU CAN DO IS LIMIT THE VARIABLES, THE MYRIAD BILLIONS OF THEM, AS MUCH AS YOU CAN

And even then, there's always noise.

So fuck you, economics is HARD to do right, but as long as the Scientific Method is being used, i.e. observation-hypothesis-test-tweak-test-tweak-test-ohshitweneednewhypothesis-rinceandrepeat, IT. IS. FUCKING. SCIENCE.

And this is from an Engineer. We know the value of empirical knowledge. We also know the value of making do with what you fucking have.

>> No.3279397

>>3279376

supply and demand
diminishing returns

these are just two of many economic forces that have been:

1) observed in "nature"

2)tested through various "experiments"

This branch of study is just as valid as any apple-dropping science.

>> No.3279406

>>3279397
It's as valid as sociology and psychology.

>> No.3279407

>>3279394
>>an Engineer
>>science
Choose one

Sage because economics isn't science.

>> No.3279408

>>3279406 More so because quantifiable resuts, but not by a large margin.

And psychology gets shit done. Case in point: PUA.

>> No.3279412

>>3279407 Okay FUCK YOU trying to segregate Engineering from Science is so stupid I don't have words.

>> No.3279430

>>3279408
Oh, I'm not arguing the validity of psychology or sociology.

I'm merely positing that economics is better grouped with them, as opposed to with physics.

It's fairly simple, if you'd like I can post an XKCD comic and show you where economics is.

>> No.3279431

>>3279397
And whats the formulate that empirically relates supply to demand?

>> No.3279435

>>3279430 implyinx XKDC is evidence of a point

>> No.3279441

>>3279431 There's quite a few of those, depending on how complicated you want your model to be. That's the thing with empirical models. Accuracy means complication.

>> No.3279445

>>3279441
Just name one. Then tell me what it's units are and how you measure those units.

If it's science, this should be straightforward and we'll be home for dinner.

>> No.3279455

>>3279441
>>3279435
>>3279412
>>3279408

Please stop replying like an idiot. Thank you.

>> No.3279462

Hey, know what? /int/ isn't shitty enough. So why don't you newshit go over there to make your shit threads?

>> No.3279467

>>3279219

and that experiment proves nothing the apple falls, there is no theory behind we still don't know what gravity is, what causes it and how it functions

there are plenty of things like that in economics lol

science has pretty shitty theories anyway, the fact that something is "science" isn't good or bad, it doesn't mean anything

it's all just part of a transient program, in 100years from now all our shit is gonna be different and outdated and new programs will begin and relativity will be even shittier than newtonian mechanics, etc

there's math and logic, and then there's everything else and everything else is just handwaving and guessing

>> No.3279470

>>3279445 Let me google it for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

>>3279455 Why shouldn't I reply?

>> No.3279488
File: 29 KB, 461x357, Locutusofborg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3279488

>>3279470
How bout you stop wiggling about a simple example that is easy and straightforward. I understand I'm asking alot from someone who claims alot, but you know, this is how science goes.

You posit something, and I inquire as to your reasoning. Waving your hands about what you claim to be a straightforward science is quite inexplicable.

I'm not here to learn your dogma, all I want is this equation for supply and demand that you claim justifies economics onto the same level of empiricism as physics.

One would think if economics was a science and so easy to discern, you would have a ready-made answer for it's empirical experimental apparatus and it's formulae.

I know I can't take your ignorance as demonstration of what I assert, but it's certainly starting to prove my point.

>> No.3279492

>>3279445

not everything in science is quantifiable or repeatable, or directly observable...the way you do quantum physics experiments is 100000% different than you do evolution "experiments" or neurology experiments...

science has no particular method, there is no precise way to go from hypothesis to theory. You don't apply an algorithm named Scientific Method to a hypothesis and extract some theory, it's all just imaginative guessing and inductive reasoning, followed by interpretation. Since all science is inductive reasoning you shouldn't be surprised that it has no method (inb4 durr wikipedia science method) there is no method, it's a misnomer...there is no algorithm in science you can apply generally, all experiments are quite different. Now stfu.

Anyway, economics isn't physics, it isn't even evolution. But it still looks to the real world for answers, it doesn't just sit back and speculate like religion. The problem is it uses statistical and historical data. We can't freaken re-create the world and modify one variable and see how things would result. But you can do good analysis and make models as accurate as possible. We know from experience that if your economy is an a recession and you start doing contractionary monetary/fiscal policy it's going to prolong the recession.etc

>> No.3279493

>>3278876
Your picture is laughable communist dreck. Your text is nonsensical.

Wealth should NEVER EVER be distributed evenly. That defies every principles of wealth creation and relegates everyone to poverty. The idea that rich people are bad because they invest their money is ridiculous on their face. Those investments drive innovation of all kinds, technological progress, and even scientific progress. A large spread of income levels between rich and poor (there is no "gap" -- there is a continuum) is indicative of a healthy and thriving economy filled with opportunity.

>> No.3279496

Is economics a science because it is like Darwinian biology? Darwinian biology is very different from the physical sciences. Like economics it is a very useful way to organize your thinking about complex phenomena. But it is not a predictive or very precise science or whatever you want to call it…. Darwinism, like much of economics, exploits tautological reasoning. If the fossil record is incomplete or shows no change or vast periods or the pace of change is inconsistent with the fossil record, the theory is not discarded but modified with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Is punctuated equilibrium true? There is no real way of knowing. It is our best hypothesis given very limited data. Is it a science? Sure. But it is a science that is unlike physics. That’s OK. It is still a very useful way of organizing one’s thinking about evolution. And the “imperfection” of biology is fine unless you really want to know when the elephant got his trunk. Then you are in unscientific territory. It doesn’t matter whether our understanding of natural selection is imperfect or that we simply don’t have enough fossil data. Biologists understand the limits of their field.

>> No.3279501

>>3278911
>The wealthy make the rules, and they make it so that their investments don't come with risks.
They would if they could. But they can't and they don't.

>Those among the wealthy who hoard will fall behind as their money loses value compared to the growth of the economy. Those who invest will have to run the risk of losing on their investments, but will also contribute to society
This is exactly what happens. Hording wealth would mean buying mansions and boats, which depreciate. OTOH, investments of all kinds do come with risks and potential rewords. It's much easier for the middle class to invest without risk (for example with FDIC insurance) than is possible for the rich. It's basically impossible. Their investments are also much less liquid due to their size. For example Warren Buffet can't decide to sell off one of his major investments all at once, because it would be impossible to get current market price for the volume he wants to sell.

>> No.3279503

>>3279488

The relationship is pretty intuitive and happens 99% of the time...

Supply goes up, price goes down.
Demand goes up, price goes up.

>> No.3279516

Economics is also self-correcting based on empirical evidence. Sometimes its theories are put into practice and then facts contradict them and we reject them...if it was pure speculation you could always make up excuses and ad hoc explanations to safeguard your theory.

The old Keynesian Phillips Curve held that there was a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. You could increase own at the expense of the other, but when that relationship broke down during the stagflation of the 1970s, the Phillips Curve was invalidated, and this helped shift macro away from old Keynesianism and towards the new classical paradigm.

Economics isn't like physics, it's more like Darwinism

>> No.3279517

>>3279190
Economics is not like physics. It is however, just like meteorology and climatology (combined). You can model many of the processes and understand them well, and develop systems of differential equations to represent them. However, it is so complex and chaotic, that you can't always anticipate the evolution of the system, or what conditions will come into play.

They are all sciences, however, as you can empirically develop models, and test your models against the real world.

>> No.3279519

Economics is much harder than physics.

Von Neuman said it is the hardest science there is.

>> No.3279528

>>3279445
The Black–Scholes formula.

>> No.3279532

>>3279503
Great. Now quantify this relationship and you have a science.

>> No.3279533

>>3279532
you can't because everybody has a different value scale

>> No.3279539

>>3279533
It's quantified all the time. In macro-economics you learn how to use quantified supply and demand curves to calculate profit margins, prices, and volumes under various conditions.

>> No.3279542

Quantifying relationships doesn't make the relationship scientific.

If you can observe it in reality, then it's empirical. And if it has predictive powers then it's basically scientific...We can observe changes in supply on price quite easily. Demand is trickier but still apparent...

>>3279528

Ya Black-Scholes formula, you can use it to price options or you can use it to solve the heat equation in physics. :)

>> No.3279553
File: 76 KB, 510x510, econtroll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3279553

>>3279542
>Black-Scholes formula, you can use it to price options or you can use it to solve the heat equation in physics

>mfw mind blown