/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3926701]

/sci/ you are so good at math and science but so bad at economics. Why?

[Anonymous No.3926716]

Because no one is good at economics?

[Anonymous No.3926715]

Economics sucks, I found that studying in this field, is somewhat sterile and very limited to the creation of artificial value made by greedy humans to serve more greedy humans. Science and math to the contrary bring a concrete progress by discovering new laws and making new products that improve day-to-day life.

[Anonymous No.3926717]

good troll pic brohemian.

[Anonymous No.3926723]

Because economics isn't a science.

2/10 for getting a response

[Anonymous No.3926727]

Because economics isn't a science.

[Anonymous No.3926738]

economics feels more like ideology and dogma than fact & skeptical evaluation

[Anonymous No.3926741]

>>3926701
economics isn't a science.

[Anonymous No.3926742]

because you touch yourself at night lololol

[Anonymous No.3926751]

OP has never read Das Kapital.

That's some seriously scientific shit in that document there.

I could the same statements about people defending capitalism with "HURR DURR HUMAN NATURE OH MY GOD YOU DUMB FUCKING HIPPIE DURP SUPPLY AND DEMAND GET SOME EDUCATION YOU FUCKING PLEBES"

[Anonymous No.3926762]

>>3926701
that is one hell of a troll pic OP
economics, being a social science, cannot apply universal laws to itself; unlike hard science.

[Anonymous No.3926766]

BECAUSE the so-called education system is autistic. It forces people to focus, so that they become so unable to function as citizens and consumers and people, that they do stupid things like sign up for $100K in school debt as a "good start" in their lives.

The education wants people who are like idiot savants. That's the next best thing to actually obtaining MACHINES for the labors desired. That's where all possible labor tasks are going: Everything will be done by machine, with a tiny percentage with multiple PhDs running everything, with the hypermajority totally unemployed and unemployable.

Wait, that's not right. The groaning masses will have killed and literally EATEN the PhD elite by then. So society must collapse.

[Anonymous No.3926767]

>>3926751
Perhaps the very basics of economics are somewhat scientific.

But the most important area, econometrics, is nothing but pure bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3926773]

>>3926751
please.

You realize your entire statement eradicates any belief that economics is a science.

Do your belief a favor and stfu.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3926778]

>>3926701

On a board that looks up to socialism so much is it really that hard to understand why they are bad at a science that destroys socialism so easily?

>>3926751

Kapital is a great example of what plebes think is economics. You just proved my point.

[Anonymous No.3926789]

>>3926778
>2011
>Liberty thinking he has a point

ISHYGDSDTSS

[Anonymous No.3926796]

>>3926778
What is your economics then? The science of greed?

Kapital deconstructs the capitalist system as it is with brutal honesty.

Besides, the purpose for the deconstructions are different in either analysis; you want to maximize profits while we want to liberate society for greater purposes. Collectively we can do much more than as alienated private individuals.

[Anonymous No.3926825]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJwwAVM1Auc
its funny because its true.

only few scientific minds manage to dig through all of those bullshit management, accounting marketing and so on courses associated with studying economics.

[Anonymous No.3926829]

>>3926796
as saying, most modern capitalist economics are just making excuses for their self serving masters to continue to exploit the working class.

For example, in the austrian school, no: profit seeking will not seek new investment unless it's critical. Instead they will continue to decrease wages until it's critical to invest in new capital (machinery etc), and when they do, they will fire ever more people with the capital they invested in machinery to replace what the workers did for a much lesser cost.

Consider the options of your masters, what's the best plan for them? And with that honest empathization, we emerge with the Marxist theories of economics.

Self-serving is self-destruction, even psychologists know that ; and they even practice more of a science than economists do.

[Anonymous No.3926841]

>>3926829
BURNNNNNNNNNNN

MOTHERFUCKAS JUST GOT LIT UP! LESS OF A SCIENCE THAN PSYCHOLOGY!?

YOU NIGGAS GON' LET THAT STAND?

[Anonymous No.3926852]

>>3926796
you don't analyze economics. You just convince yourself that any detractors or conflicting evidence is ignorable.

>GIGO

[Anonymous No.3926855]

Im not sure any of you know what economics is...

Most of the bullshit that gets flung in these 'economics' discussions is more ethics, political science and sociology than economic theory.

[Anonymous No.3926866]

>>3926855
>implying psychology, sociology, ethics and politics are not factors in economic systems.

[Anonymous No.3926877]

>>3926701

austrian econ is god tier in the sense that its based on faith and arm-chair philosophy and has never used empirical data to support its ideas

and its "a priori" approach is hilarious, lol praexology, cause you can use intuition and reason to figure out how markets and humans interact....

hahahah good show

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3926872]

>>3926796

No.

It deconstructs non-free markets (not capitalism). Sure, I agree.

People are trucking stupid, individuals at least have a chance to be smart.

>>3926829

> mixed economy welfare states
> capitalism
> mfw

[Anonymous No.3926883]

>>3926872
the "free market" is an oxymoron, I have never found anything for free at a market.

[Anonymous No.3926885]

>>3926866

Didnt mean to imply that. The study of Economics, which this thread is basically bashing, can hardly be judged by the shit-flinging capitalism vs socialism debates. The application of economics, on a macro level, needs to take these into account, but it isnt really economics.

[Anonymous No.3926890]

>>3926872
>The dumbest among us know not that they are dumb

-- liberty, on the obviousness of the truth

[Anonymous No.3926898]

>>3926885
so define what economic science is then..

it's basically how we allocate resources and assign policy pertaining to the distribution systems of commodities and services. And those decisions consider ethics, psychology, sociology, (etc..) in their process.

[Anonymous No.3926909]

>>3926872
>It deconstructs non-free markets (not capitalism)
So in other words it's actually relevant to the real world since there never has been such a thing as a free-market, and market apologists are always quick to point out that the system we have in place now "isn't really capitalism".

Good to know.

[Anonymous No.3926913]

>>3926898
economics is the study of all aspects of the idea of "value". That's as simple as i can put it. Anybody else want to take a crack?

[Anonymous No.3926920]

Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

[Anonymous No.3926921]

>>3926913
yeah, and "value" incorporates what people want and what people want is determined by psychology.

[Anonymous No.3926936]

>>3926701

Why would you put Austrian School in God tier in a science board? As if there is anything scientific about the approach of Austrian economics.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3926941]

>>3926909

I agree non-free markets fail. This would include the non-free market of socialism/communism/marxism/etc.

[Anonymous No.3926945]

>>3926941
and all historical and present manifestations of capitalism and laissez faire markets.

your bias is showing.

[Anonymous No.3926953]

>>3926941
Okay.

Define a free market to us, and describe, in detail, why it's superior. So we can discuss and criticize it in a scientific manner.

[Anonymous No.3926957]

>>3926941
Also, describe what a "failed" market is.

[Anonymous No.3926961]

>>3926921
And what people determine by psychology is based on what they currently value.

Its all one large and complicated homolog of a circular logic.

[Anonymous No.3926964]

>>3926945
this is liberty, he is basically a fanatic who believes in a truly free market economy that is perfect, and the farther anything is from that the more he hates it, he is kind of aware a real free market is impossible but he believes it would solve everything anyway, i think he is glad it is obviously impossible so he runs no risk of ever being proven wrong

[Anonymous No.3926965]

>>3926957
because I know of several non-free markets that are doing SO WELL right now, and many "free" markets that are doing piss poor; in fact so poor they had to be bailed out for $700B of taxpayer money.

[Anonymous No.3926966]

>>3926953
>2011
>Asking liberty to define anything but liberty.

[Anonymous No.3926978]

>>3926961
No, that's not circular logic. You just re-arranged the sentence to say the same thing that I said. If you can determine one's values, you can determine their psyche - and vice-versa. Two sides of the same equation.

You just graduate from kindergarten, bud?

[Anonymous No.3926981]

Austrian Economics: Crowdsource it.

Keynesian Economics: Outsource it.

[Anonymous No.3926991]

I'm okay with this dot jay peg.

Austrian, Keynesian and Chicago Schools of economics should be engaged in a constant and healthy debate over how to deal with issues. Without perfect information transmission, and with the existence of externalities, of the tragedy of the commons, and other issues, no single one of them is actually ideal.

[Anonymous No.3926996]

>>3926978
But how do you determine if you determined one's value without interfering with the actual outcome by using your determination?

Did you just miss the bus to the terrible 2s?

[Anonymous No.3927008]

>>3926965
>"free markets"
>"bailed out by the taxpayer"

You are getting confused about whether the market is free bud. A free market would allow the banks to fail.

[Anonymous No.3927028]

>austrian econ
>god tier, /sci/

>mfw austrians hate empiricism, data, math, and facts

>mfw austrians simply argue philosophically and don't care about reality

[Anonymous No.3927073]

AUSTRIAN SUPERIORITY

[Anonymous No.3927101]

>Austrian economics
>hey guys the economy is perfect on its own anything we do will make it worse the only thing we can do is sit back and watch it and it will fix everything

Honestly, if Austrian economists weren't known to be full of shit by at least some people, they wouldn't have a profession, because the core tenet of their belief system is that any economic action will be negative; their only use would be as number crunchers for corporate decision making.

[Anonymous No.3927111]

>>3927101 if Austrian economists weren't known to be full of shit

Sure, that's how they predicted the current debt and monetary crisis, by being full of shit.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3927151]

Sup OP. I fixed your picture.

[Anonymous No.3927183]

Economics wouldn't suck if people quit killing the market over fear and getting bonus points for greed.

'FIRE 2,000 WORKERS- STOCKS SHOOT UP!'
'RAISE WAGES- STOCKS PLUMMET.'

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3927197]

>>3927151
> post-scarcity
whelp, I'm trolled

[Anonymous No.3927201]

>>3927197
Welp, you're dumb

[Anonymous No.3927203]

>>3927073

seconded

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3927208]

>>3927197

I'll admit it's a misnomer. It's really about managing scarcity so well that it never seems real to the consumer.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927210]

>>3927151

mad y

[Anonymous No.3927209]

>>3927183
Idiocy aside, stocks are based off fear and confidence.
If someone yells to the NYSE 'JP MORGAN-CHASE UNDER INVESTIGATION! (Add random source)', then JP Morgan-Chase's stock will plummet if you can make it believable.

It's sooo easy to troll the economy.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3927219]

>>3927210

Come at me, bro.

[Anonymous No.3927220]

>>3927151

>Leaves Austrian high tier
>Puts Libertarianism at bottom

Austrian economics is a libertarian school of thought. Looks like babbys first troll attempt

[Anonymous No.3927221]

>>3927219

Praying mantises are God damned evil

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3927222]

>>3927219

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927226]

>>3927220

I just got out of a study group for econ.

Im going to dump some graphs I made for homework.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.3927227]

>>3927220

I didn't alter the existing portions. I didn't care to. I was just adding the top and bottom bits and leaving people to argue as they want to over the shit that was already there.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927231]

Dumpin'

[Anonymous No.3927237]

>>3927226
Are you implying that steady and healthy employment amounts keep wages up?
Are you stating the obvious without taking a psychological route?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927259]

One of these columns is GDP per capita in 1980, and one is in 2007 (adjusted for inflation).

It basically shows that wealthy nations just keep getting wealthier and poor nations dont get any richer. Also, in events like WWII, where wealthy nations (japan, Germany, Korea) end up with nothing, they immediately fly back into wealth.

>>3927237

No.

That graph was for a question about decreasing unemployment by increasing the rate at which jobs are offered.

The textbook was suggesting that one way to decrease unemployment is to encourage job offers. And one way to do that is make the means of communication between unemployed and employer more efficient. For instance, if I am looking for a job, Im not aware of all the jobs in existence. Things like the internet make me more efficient at finding jobs, and effectively lower unemployment. Government job agencies do the same thing, by being a hub for people to find jobs.

However, this is one only side of the story. When I can only find one job offer. I either choose between that one, and unemployment. When I can find more job offerings Im more likely be picky. For instance, if being a cashier is my only option, I guess thats what Ill take. But if being a cashier is my first option, and I might find 12 more offers in the next few weeks, I am more likely to turn down that option so I can hopefully find a better one.

The graph says that, as the job offer rate goes up, people are more likely to turn down jobs. The wage reservation rate is the flat black line. And red line is... something. I forgot. I also forgot why it curves down like that...

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927266]

Oh yeah and I was watching this earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc

My favorite two politicians on TV at the same time.

[Anonymous No.3927270]

>>3927208

[Anonymous No.3927281]

>>3927266

Nice, another video added to my favorites

[Anonymous No.3927286]

>>3927259
>It basically shows that wealthy nations just keep getting wealthier and poor nations dont get any richer

But... they are all getting richer, at different rates. Is Indonesia considered a wealthy nation?

[Anonymous No.3927294]

>>3926778
>>3927259
for the love of god, MODS please BAN these faggots

[Anonymous No.3927297]

too many unpredictable variables. I enjoy the mathematics and mental stimulation incurred from debate with others, I don't enjoy the Extispical nature of it's "predictions"

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927318]

>>3927286

Yeah, they are all getting richer, but notice how America basically doubled in GDP in 27 years, while Ethiopia increased by ~15%

If you look back in time, in the history of economic growth for the last thousands of years. Every nation was approximately as wealth. The income inequality between nations was around a factor of 2 or 3. There was also basically no economic growth. It was only until the last 300 years or so that modern nations took off and started growing. Now the income inequality between countries is massive, because some of them have exploded in technological progress, and others have remained with nothing.

Also Indonesia is not a wealthy nation.

>>3927294

Please dont lump me in with liberty... I find it more insulting to compare me to liberty than it is to call me a faggot who needs to be banned.

>>3927297

Yep, shits complicated.

[Anonymous No.3927335]

>>3927318
Yes, the United States doubled its GDP. Ireland's tripled. Indonesia more than doubled theirs. So did India. China increased theirs by a factor of seven.

Ethiopia, Mexico, Kenya, and Brazil all have poor growth rates compared to the others, but they are only four out of fifteen. Is your blanket statement based on the whole chart, or just the screencapped portion?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927352]

>>3927335

I think you could say there is like, a global trend line. Where the economies of the rich nations of the world are growing at. When a nation enters into that trend line, it doesnt start growing at where it was. It flys up into the trend line at a rate faster than the trend, at that point it has joined in the modern economy. I mentioned Japan and Germany and Korea. Basically the same thing happens. They grew at a rate faster than the trend until they reached the trend and then they grew at the trend line.

You could suspect that Indonesia is now joining this trend of economic growth that European countries began a few hundred years ago. Notice how the projected GDP shows China getting far richer. Its not really realistic, because we cant expect them to grow at that rate forever I dont think China's growth of 700% is sustainable.

[Anonymous No.3927358]

>>3926991
Whoa, the reasonableness.

>>3926964
So he's basically a reverse-communist?

[Anonymous No.3927363]

>>3927352
Okay, so when you said this:

>It basically shows that wealthy nations just keep getting wealthier and poor nations dont get any richer

What did you mean, exactly?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3927374]

>>3927363

Because historically, in the long term (thousands and thousands of years), there has been virtually no economic growth, with the exception of recent history. And in the short term, there has been immense economic growth. Many of these poor nations are living in wealth/conditions comparable to modern wealthy nations 100 or 200 years ago.

You could suspect that poor nations are just nations that havent entered the phenomenon of economic growth yet.

[Anonymous No.3927385]

>>3927374
Only four of the nations on that section of the graph have a growth rate under 0.01, so you saying that poor nations don't get any richer confused me. Now I understand the point you were trying to make.

[Anonymous No.3927412]

Australian school

>G'day Bruce!
>G'day Bruce!
>G'day Bruce!
>G'day Bruce!

[Anonymous No.3927435]

>>3926701
>bad at economics
>implying economics isn't built on a foundation of shit, and the only contest is to see how much shit you can throw at each other

[Anonymous No.3927439]

>>3927435
This sounds suspiciously like a description of 4chan.

[Anonymous No.3927449]

>>3927412

LMAO

[Anonymous No.3927465]

>>3926701
>/sci/ you are so good at logic puzzles and chess but so bad at shoots and ladders. Why?

OP, this is basically what you are asking.

[Anonymous No.3927466]

>>3927412
5 star post

[Anonymous No.3927498]

“in any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein”

[Anonymous No.3927510]

Hell no, capitalism FTW but yeah it needs to be supported by a little socialism. Just like all the succesful countries.

[Anonymous No.3927517]

>>3927465 shoots and ladders
>shoots

LMAO