ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE

There are better, more productive ways to waste your time. E.g. you can learn to play guitar. At least when some twat will spread FUD about crypto, you will not lose money, because your well prepared TA predicted massive gainz that didn't happened.

I don't know if you're really right, but that's exactly how I feel observing charts. For example, every single instance a candle crosses the bollinger bands everyone starts to sell/buy. Like, why? Just because the indicator said it's oversold/overbought? What's stopping people from keeping selling/buying? Nothing. It feels like a fucking self-fulfilling prophecy.

You have no idea what you are talking about, understanding basic economic concepts like supply and demand, rsi etc give you a lead in speculation

Look at elon musk for example, he got rich selling a domain name attached to an actual product, also by acting against everyones emotions by acquiring tesla during an economic collapse. It takes someone with a decent understanding of economics and foresight to make those decisions, not luck.

Youre just salty because youre retarded

Exactly, the whole basis of "economics" deals with "Rational people" but we all know the very fact that humans have emotions means we act irrationally.

Yesssssss. So fkn beautiful.

OP is semi-right

Economics can not predict shit. Any scientific field can say that if such and such conditions are met, it will likely cause X to occur. This can be done on the MICRO scale in economics via laws of supply and demand and etc., but on the MACRO scale it is for the most part conjecture. The human/emotional element is a huge factor in the macroeconomy that most ((intellectuals)) never take into account

-t economics BS

It's a social science, but it's becoming more like a hard science every year. Homo Economicus was the biggest problem facing the field, and now that he's dead the models are better than ever

>not subject to scientific method
>is a science
Economistsfags are worstfags

this is what lefties actually believe HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

sorry but you have triggered my autism kind sir. "rational" actual means mathematically rational such that we can attach a function to it. Not to do with emotion or the colleqial common understanding of rational. That being said there is a whole field of behavioural economics. And typically in IO and Econometrics they work backwards from data rather than deriving demand from some arbitrary utility functions. Having said that I think more false assumptions are made about profit maximization particularly in models pertaining to game theory such as infinitely repeated games, especially with grim trigger strategy where more firms say fuck it and undercut their opponent than would make sense from a profit perspective. But this definitely doesn't negate those models.

No. The fact that you use math in economics, doesn't make it a real science. You guys just can accept the simple fact that economics TRIES to predict future. To do so you make assumptions. But what makes this approach useless is that these assumptions are dependent on people's emotions. In the end this becomes a fucking lottery. Physics, math, engineering... Whit these tools you can actually do something useful. Economics is reading from tea leaves. But I understand how you guys feel now, when you realized that you have wasted your life studying useless shit. You only live once, right?

> economics TRIES to predict future.
No serious economist claims this.

A science is any discipline that uses the scientific method.
Your bullshit elitism doesn't have any credit to it.
There are parts of any discipline that are either scientific or heuristics.
Just because one discipline deals with natural processes and another with the flow of capital or human behavior doesn't make any difference.

Go back to school you tard.

do you have any idea what economics is?

Do you even know what economics are?
Do you know what a social science is?
Are you saying statistics have no value in society?
Economics isnt meant to be a Crystal ball, no economist is trying to predict the future, economists only say that when spreading FUD to dumb normies or trying to unload their bags, sorry if you're too retarded to understand this.

Economics isn't trying to predict the future. Economics is about the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources

Economist here, you're right. Macro no giod p.

Also lol @ op implying that what's he's saying is in conflict with generally accepted economic orthodoxy, i.e. the weak efficient market hypothesis.

I agree that to do things like Musk did, requires an instinct. But this instinct let him to PREDICT that things will have to change in near future so he took his chances. He got lucky. Because there were no contraindications that things could have gone the other way. Still... Reach people like to spend money, so regardless how things went, Musk would be a millionaire either way, because rich people would buy Tesla cars due their uniqueness. People like to buy luxury because it makes them feel good. Soooo... Again: it's all about emotions and not understanding the narket/economics.

I'm sorry you wasted your life.

Statistically you're a chink.

Financel Controller here from top 10 "business economics" school in the world

Yes sir, Economics and Finance is a big fat lie
The injustice, inequality, corruption, knows no bounds, to keep the rich wealthier and slaves down

OP is right, its just spitting in your coffe and reading future from the bubbles it makes, and having fancy maths to confuse the illiterate like yourself.

>serious economist

It's an oxymoron.

Is nobody going to check these trips?

econ fag here. why? If you are actually a fellow econfag Id like to here arguments. Im more an IO guy. but development models fascinate me (hard to deny the validity of the big push after Asian development as well), and lots of macro seems useful.
business is not economics.
Finance is the former.
Regardless of how you feel if you knew econ you'd know this, and you'd know that whether you agree with OP, and or like Econ. OP objectively does not know what economics is.

Did an economist molest you when you were little, because it seems like you have an irrational hate of economists.

You are an absolute retard, sir.
You confuse market analysis with economic theory.
You don't even have the basic understanding of the concept of economics.
Shut the fuck up and go kill yourself.

supply and demand is an oxymoron
the whole free market idea does not and has never existed in any human society
even the premise of all econ 101 classes "there was barter and then people invented money" is a fantasy
no human society functioned by barter or "invented money"

money is debt, money is slavery, money is violence.
the history of money should begin there, not a mythical "barter economy".

Im going to assume he got burned by some retarded TA fag and thought that was what econ was.
do you know what an oxymoron is?

and economics really fails at that goal
otherwise there would be far more equal wealth distribution
"efficiently allocating scarce resources" is what rich fags can say to poor people to remain rich - so the poor do not kill him for not having a life
the fucking reason why we are here in crypto
because economics is a lie

Not a science. That is all I need to know.

I don't hate them. Why should I? I just share my opinion, pajeet.

Wew lad your mixing up of a discipline and economic policy is really fucking embarrassing.
Try to read a book once every 5 years maybe you won't come over as a total retard.

economics and finance are not the same thing.

Neither are a science, but they are different topics. Economists don't claim to know how to day trade.

>and economics really fails at that goal
>otherwise there would be far more equal wealth distribution
No. For three reasons. 1 econ is a study not a policy. 2 normative econ=/= possitive econ. You can think something is more efficient but worse, and vice versa. 3. that would actually be horribly inefficient. Do you want me to explain efficiency? not a rhetorical question.

Here are some basic economic theorems for you to begin grasping the concept of economics:

>a larger quantity of a good is preferred to a smaller amount of the same good
>production must precede consumption
>what is consumed now cannot be consumed again in the future
>prices fixed below market-clearing prices will lead to lasting shortages
>without private property in production factors there can be no factor prices, and without factor prices cost-accounting is impossible
>an increase in the supply of paper money cannot increase total social wealth but can only redistribute existing wealth
>monopoly (the absence of free entry) leads to higher prices and lower product quality than competition
>no thing or part of a thing can be owned exclusively by more than one party at a time
>democracy (majority rule) and private property are incompatible

Does this sound like trying to predict the market, you absolute fuck? Economics study the universal attributes and categories of human action. It is not economics, but entrepreneurship, investment and trading is what attempts to predict the future. There are some among the economists who don't accept the fact that human action never occurs in vacuum and the economy is always a swirling flux of individual actions, influencing one another, and therefore you cannot make predictions of the economic future based on historical data - that is, they believe that the method for the studying of inanimate matter is perfectly adequate for the study of human action - but they don't represent "economics", merely some idiotic school of the whole.

But you are so fucking deep in your dunning-kruger effect that you most likely didn't even understand a single sentence of what I said, and you have no idea about anything mentioned above.

sorry, not oxymoron, I meant its a tautology,
a self evident self-reinforcing phrase, as if it was truth, but can not be falsified.

yet, is only fruitful to offer massive circlejerks for econ fags, its similar to a catholic prayer - a phrase they repeat to feel good like "praise thy lord amen".
the phrase, just like a prayer, has the effect of stalling further thought, to make you not think.

>TAing is a dumb meme and you cant predict the future.
This is not true. Sure, drawing meme lines and waves is most likely pointless, but basic TA observations within the context of crypto fundamentals work, without a doubt.

Call it whatever you want, user, but it will not make a difference. You just have to accept that whatever you belived, it was all crap. You do not need economics to do simple math (for supply and demand calculations). You also should stop behave like statistical methods was invented by economics and not adopted by it. Sober up and dump this useless shit. Engage in math/science.

econ is a pseudoscience

i'm sorry you wasted your academic life

Of course, user, of course... According to TA REQ should be like 2$ right now...

> econ fag here. why?
do you believe the story from Adam Smiths book, there was barter - people found it difficult to exchange muh tomatoes for your shoes, so the double needs of wants, and they invented money, a free market to guide their efforts in aquiring goods they need?

yes, good lad, see that story is as good as the religious story of say, the good samaratin.
its just a story to illustre something the author wanted to say.

but it has no connection to real human societies, such fucking exchanges of tomatoes for shoes never happened!

economics puts forth an idea, a spit in a coffe, and talks about it, investigates it with numerical methods, statistics what have you.

then you have the entire economical system built on these foundation of lies - a myth.

>proving what I said
You so much don't know what you are talking about that you wouldn't even understand if I'd tell you that virtually all economists up til the 20. century rejected the use of mathematics and equations as a sound method of the science. You are so fucking clueless that you have no idea about the fact that there is a whole school of economics that absolutely and categorically rejects statistics and equations as the method of study, and accepts only deductive reasoning from a priori principles.
You are so dumb, you have no idea what any of this means.

If you would have 50 more IQ points, I'd tell you to go and read the essay Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe to understand the basic questions regarding epistemology and method, but you are hopeless.

Just shut the fuck up talking about things you never learned about anything at all.

> 1 econ is a study not a policy.

thats the most fucking retarded response in this thread ever.

A. Economist's don't run the world, politicians do and B. Show me the study that says an equal distribution of wealth is more efficient than the free market price mechanism

user I was talking to the guy who claimed to be an economist. Not the fucking retard. No offence. I just really have no interest in your opinion on the matter. Same reason ecologists dont care about my two cents on global warming.

> Economics study the universal attributes and categories of human action.

Fuuuck this... This is soo retarded, user. This is exactly what I am speaking about the entire time. Fucking human actions are driven by fucking human emotions. That is why economic is unpredictable/ irrational. That is why I claim that it is not a science, you dumb fuckturd. Oh, I can't stop laughing... You're so fucking retarded.

>within the context of crypto fundamentals
It's like you dumb nigger can't even read. Fuck off, kill yourself.

OP is probably buttmad because some retard economist doesn't like crypto. Well guess what faggot, I'm an economist too and I have 99% of my net worth in ETH and I'll be retiring before I'm 30. It's not a hard science like math but it's definitely not like religion either. It's closer to game theory. Yes no one care predict the future with 100% certainty but you can make educated guesses that tip the odds in your favor. Combine that with proper risk management and discipline and you can daytrade quite successfully. Attacking the entire field of economics just shows how ill-informed you are.

>They get rich because they are fucking lucky and then they use their money to influence and corrupt people's opinion.

>If you would have 50 more IQ points, I'd tell you to go and read the essay Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe to understand the basic questions regarding epistemology and method, but you are hopeless.

But,but, but.... But you've just told me, user...

Agreed

I've already given you the fucking examples of economic theorems. If you would have a minimal inclination towards any reasoning ability, you would understand that it is not at all what you are speaking about.

Once again, such are the theorems of economics:

>a larger quantity of a good is preferred to a smaller amount of the same good
>production must precede consumption
>what is consumed now cannot be consumed again in the future
>prices fixed below market-clearing prices will lead to lasting shortages
>without private property in production factors there can be no factor prices, and without factor prices cost-accounting is impossible
>an increase in the supply of paper money cannot increase total social wealth but can only redistribute existing wealth
>monopoly (the absence of free entry) leads to higher prices and lower product quality than competition
>no thing or part of a thing can be owned exclusively by more than one party at a time
>democracy (majority rule) and private property are incompatible

Does any of this is disproven because you blurt out "fucking human actions are driven by fucking human emotions" like a fucking autist who succeeded in his first deduction at the age of 35? It fucking does not. But once again, you are so much trapped in your dunning-kruger infested delusion of grandeur, you are absolutely incapable of rational evaluation.

/thread

If you knew anything about psychology you would know that human behavior is predictable.
Or maybe you'd like to debate that with Amazon and Google who have made billions off that fact alone.

I said the free market is an illusion, another dumb faggot idea for econ fags to jerk themselves over, with no connection to the real world and real human societies. as all markets are manipulated, boy, and it took what 100 years for economics to realize, muh free market participants dont have all the info and some are retarded actually.

its really like econ fags are studying their models, their ideas, their spit in the coffe
when their numbers goes up they claim it was all due to their fancy spit
but when told, muh income inequality, then econ fags dont run the world.

Economics is a "social science." There are fundamental factors that can be quantified and modeled to attempt to understand the concept. However, because the object of study is made up of so many parts and extremely complex, "economics" as a profession is essentially no different from theoretical physics. It's just a bunch of people collecting data, interpreting the data, and making up theories that they can neither prove or disprove definitively. Coming up with a perfectly accurate theory of economics would be on par with developing unified field theory.

That has nothing to do with the definition of a free market. This is the free market:

>The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a news dealer for fifty cents, the news dealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the news dealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

>But exchanges are not necessarily free. Many are coerced. If a robber threatens you with "Your money or your life," your payment to him is coerced and not voluntary, and he benefits at your expense. It is robbery, not free markets, that actually follows the mercantilist model: the robber benefits at the expense of the coerced. Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim. In the long run, coercion is a negative-sum game that leads to reduced production, saving, and investment, a depleted stock of capital, and reduced productivity and living standards for all, perhaps even for the coercers themselves.
...
>Government, in every society, is the only lawful system of coercion. Taxation is a coerced exchange, and the heavier the burden of taxation on production, the more likely it is that economic growth will falter and decline. Other forms of government coercion (e.g., price controls or restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market) hamper and cripple market exchanges, while others (prohibitions on deceptive practices, enforcement of contracts) can facilitate voluntary exchanges.

Your rambling is absolutely incomprehensible. The fuck are you even trying to say, you fucking subhuman?

You're talking about econometrics, which is more on par with meteorology speaking in terms of predictability.

The free market is not an illusion lmao you've been smoking too much tinfoil

dawg, the tripping guy already made a better thread when he said to trade cryptos on emotions, not charts. but with real tangible companies, there are only a finite amount of paths society can take, and we can model those (also influencing them in the process)

the joke is that humanity destroys everything natural only to replace it with a simplified facsimile of the phenomenon

>Economics is not a science
Neither is medicine. They still make billions of dollars a year though.

You can study music scientifically and you can create music based on scientific principles.

some of these assumptions are actually not true with more complex models. You can have disutility, you can have betrand competition leading to competitive equilibrium without free entry.
I can go on if you want. I have no idea what your debate is about tho.

You are just as clueless as the others. There are sever methodological differences between the various schools of economics, and it is far from beyond dispute that modeling and quantifying and the method of "theoretical physics" is adequate for economics. Quite the opposite.

Read An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science by Lionel Robbins. You will get a thousand times more knowledgeable on the subject that this limited information that you have, not even knowing about the disputes raging on about method.

We are all animals driven by simple instincts. You should know that studying human behavior, i.e. rationalizing it, doesn't make much sense, because we are incapable of actually doing anything by our own, because we do not have free will and we (our brains) only react. And a small tumor can fuck you up completely, so what is the point of studying something so unstable like human behavior? It's like trying to predict weather for 3 days ahead with 100% certainty. Psychology is as useless as economics.

>There are sever methodological differences between the various schools of economics
While this is indisputable, the basis of the argument is that all economics is derived from people collecting information, theorizing about that information and what it means, and then begin unable to prove that they are objectively correct in their assertions.

Those methods which rely less on numerical analysis are, of course, more prone to being influenced by "gut feel" and cognitive biases, making them more akin to the tea-leaf reading that OP is referring to, and should not be taken as seriously as the methods which are driven by objective quantifiable observations. That's the nature of a scientific field.

fucking retarded
again your whole paragraph is just a tautology
read an anthropology or history book instead of economic faggotry

> he actually thinks trying to model human society and relationships as "exchanges taking place between them in a free market" is a novel fruitful concept

...

Yes! I 100% agree. But still... Music doesn't pretend to be science :) But I could be a science, because it is based on physical phenomena (vibrations/ waves).

what tea leave reading bullshit are you talking about? While I grimaced when I say "protestant work ethic" being thrown into total factor productivity, I must have been sheltered if this is common in any major field of econ. Even behavioural econ is pretty imperical. But I dont count "historical economists" or "economic philosphers" as the real deal. Read too many strawmans like
typically from people who don't understand math.

>disregard data and treat your dogma as a primary truth regardless of the evidence against it
yawn

No I mean scientific quantifiable study.
You can accurately predict the behavior of a group of people based on previous observations.
I'm not going to waste any more words on this, the field of psychology is wide enough that you can google hundreds of studies replicated in every continent for decades on every relevant subject.
I don't need a lesson on the human condition either.

go back to Veeky Forums

>Those methods which rely less on numerical analysis are, of course, more prone to being influenced by "gut feel" and cognitive biases, making them more akin to the tea-leaf reading that OP is referring to, and should not be taken as seriously as the methods which are driven by objective quantifiable observations. That's the nature of a scientific field
Economics isn't a scientific field. The controlled experiments necessary to make the field scientific can not be conducted. The fields of economics trying to pretend that it is scientific are the ones to not take seriously. They have abandoned logic in an attempt to use science, but end up using neither logic nor science.

This guys mind is going to be blown when he learns what a soft science is. That and that theoretical models can be developed mathamatically/quantitatively (such is the basis of economics) when someone tells him about ecconometrics. Or he finally learns econ is not used to forecast, not even that weird "math stuff" he hates.

>This guys mind is going to be blown when he learns what a soft science is
The true name for "social science" is social research. It's not a science.

what if we are using the scientific method?
next up you gonna tell me evolution is fake cause you don't know what a theory is?
I mean you are really just falsely arguing semantics at this point. You confuse the word science with like some manner of prestige or work towards the natural world. To be honest I dont care if you call it doo-doo tea reading if you dont like the term soft science, I admit it throws off the normalfags alot.. Just understand what it is.

>what if we are using the scientific method?
You can not use the scientific method in the field of economics, the controlled experiments required are incapable of being performed.

t. brainlet.
what do you think is the basis for analysis then? Do you understand the scientific method? ofc this is still the stupid semantic argument

>first time in Veeky Forums
>see this
so is true this place is full of retards, otherwise this thread would be ignored and laughed at instead of debated.
time to make lots of money from morons.

youre a fucking retard if you dont think economics is useful for specific purposes

>what do you think is the basis for analysis then?
Statistical correlations, usually.
> Do you understand the scientific method?
Obviously.

Take an industrial organization class and see for yous

To the anons pushing economic theories, congrats on going to university for years just to learn things that are common sense "hurr monopolies are bad hurrr". Kys

wrong pic

The fact that you think all monopolies are bad kinda just proves how retarded you are.

That’s where you’re wrong. Science is the use of empirical methods to discover the truth. Economics is the study of human actions in the marketplace using formulaic and scientific methods.

take for instance Any random unrealistic over simple econ model. I brought up Betrand in this thread for instance. I can verify if all assumptions hold it is true through any mathmatical examples. Plug in any values any production functions it will hold. I can run it through any mathematical challenge it will hold. Niw how does this predict the future?it doesn't that's not what the scientific method is you cum dumpster. If conditions are met it will hold always. Conditions are never realistically met at least in its purest form. Now I can run with years of past data and check this out to. and make inferrences.
Thats econometrics which is a whole nother ballgame but also definitely not tea leaves bullshit and basically just applied stats

Markets are an efficient random walk.

You can't beat the market.

Buy a low cost index fund.

No manners those kids.