What does Veeky Forums think of economics in general and this guy in particular?

Economics is a great example of social science done right. Meaningful discussions between competing theories, comprehensive case studies, probably one of the only academic fields that have more than just marginal influence in public policy, and finally it's like Veeky Forums incarnate. Just go on to EJMR - they'll shit on you because of the institution you went, and not just because it's if you didn't go into a good program you're retarded - there are substantial differences in funding, connections, resources, research being done between a top 5 vs a top 50 program.

Krugman is based; anyone who thinks otherwise are armchair theorists or TYT viewers or those right-wing guys that hates anything liberal.

You want predictive power? Okay.

Hypothesis: The lower the price something is, the more people are interested in buying it.

Oh look, you've been fucking wrong since economics 101.

>you not understanding Economics at all
Wat

>Hypothesis: The lower the price something is, the more people are interested in buying it.
Wrong

You're right, I now see the fault in my thinking. Seeing how you didn't actually post your argument to support your opinion, I wrote one for you:

>The price of working hard and being something in your life is actually not all that much in comparison to how much better of a life you attain
>Despite this you're still an autist that posts on a chinese cartoon imageboard daily which will undoubtedly ruin your future in the long run

Economics proven wrong again!

Economics is a history of greed in a nutshell.
The only economist who done things right is Marx.

Economics is not falsifiable and therefore a pseudoscience.

They made it mathy so it would be considered a physical subject, when in fact most of the math is just bullshit. Instead of having great economic writers who can communicate to the layman in English we get assholes who put a bunch of equations on paper and say there it is.

bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-01/economics-has-a-math-problem

>implying

Thoughts on ecological economics?

why isnt it falsifiable?

do they not make claims that can be measured with statistics? are there simply too many confounding variables?

B-but using math legitimate anything. R-right?
People believe once you write equation, you discover absolute law of universe.

>serious advances in Economics have been as important for the welfare of humanity as the most important advances in the natural sciences.
This, the proof about the welfare loss that comes from protectionism alone is extremely important for the welfare of mankind.

It's amazing how similar to forecasting the weather most models become; you have to make new forecasts everyday and they can be useless by the end of the week.

Plus, the pay is good although the work hours suck.

You do not do economics at a serious level if you believe that.

Krugman a shit.

Krugman is a kike, a meme and a hack, in that order

A very boring textbook. I prefer Sowell (in spite of the fact that I'm white).
Are there any interesting sociology books, written like Sowell's Basic Economics? Without fucking graphs, without text-book style, etc.

I think it's shit. Who wants to live his whole life discussing money?

>I think it's shit. Who wants to live his whole life discussing [Insert stereotyped over-generalization here]?
Ohh gee if you put it that way..

How does free trade benefit America? All it leads to is outsourcing of jobs to Mexico and China.

>This post
Anyway America is probably the continent that benefits the most from free trade

Found the low IQ Trump voter

How? We have a bunch of people on welfare because their jobs are outsourced.

Please explain to me how free trade benefits working class and middle class whites.

>Please explain to me how free trade benefits working class and middle class whites.

It increases their purchasing power by reducing the costs of consumer goods.
It also helps the nation as a whole. Thanks to the principle of comparative advantage, a nation can make better use of capital by employing it on industries it is more productive.

If they have no job and are on welfare, their purchasing power will not be especially high, right?

Regarding comparative advantage, what exactly does America have a comparative advantage in?

>If they have no job

They will work on other industries. Like they do in the real world, you know. Unemployment isn't particularly high.

America is a continent; it's better to analyse the economies of individual countries

White trash can buy cheaper Trucknutz and that has a far bigger effect than a few factory jobs for a few rednecks.

Many poor and lower-middle class whites live in areas where the options aside from food service and cleaning up after the elderly after they shit themselves, and often cannot afford to move or have obligations like caring for a sick family member.

Also, IQ places a hard cap on what sort of industries said people can work in. The average (former) factory worker will, in many cases, never be able to learn the skills needed for a programming job, for instance, no matter how hard he tries.

I can't see how this will translate to a better standard of living.

Where is all the gain from America's comparative advantage going to, then? It seems like it is going mainly to wealthy owners of outsourcing corporations.

I'm referring to the USA here.

not the guy, but the masses have never had it so good, and free trade / capitalism is 100% the reason. Id even suggest that human freedom throughout history is directly related to the level of individual purchasing power.

Sure we get shit on alot, and some periods are worse than others, but then there are by definition masses of us, and we are at the bottom of the pyramid, thats the nature of the game, but the game has served humanity very well.

>where the options aside from food service and cleaning up after the elderly after they shit themselves are minimal
oops

I'm not against capitalism, but most other countries appear to not care about the well-being of their workers at all, whereas European countries at least make an attempt to provide a decent life.

>whereas European countries at least make an attempt to provide a decent life.

?
???
?????????
????????????

What the fuck are you talking about?

You don't see the shithole factories like in China or India because there are more labor laws.

this desu

HA

yeah, thanks to keynes,
all of you guys are born and wasting your life by shitposting right now.

>and this guy in particular?
Always worth thinking about the fact that this gentleman decided on his career ... after reading the Foundation Trilogy.,

This represents everything I hate. If people didn't study physics/mathematics/chemistry, they don't fucking voice their opinion on it, because clearly any uneducated opinion is almost always fucking wrong. Whereas in economics people are still advocating for a return to the gold standard or some other piece of shit ideas that can be debunked in middle school. Why is economics the only field that puts up with this garbage?

t. Economics student (yes I'm mad)

Now to answer your shit concerns,

Free trade opens up the markets for our own domestic industries. Even the Chinese doesn't want the cheap shit produced from China, and certainly no fucking third world country is going to have sophisticated industries that is supported by tech or academia. Mexicans taking your jobs isn't any different from autonomous robots that will inevitably replace you; they just already exist. Do you really think a nation that houses the largest economy, largest military, Silicon Valley, etc. has no comparative advantages? Answer is no obviously fucking not but it's not like you fucking studied this field (yes studied like actually studying and not fucking browsing /pol/) in the first place.

giffen good

What's wrong with this line of thought:

By exporting jobs to poorer countires, America hollows out job opportunites for advancement for the middle and left of the IQ bell curve. I know the US has a comparative advantage in the form of biotechnology and medical science, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, etc.

Of course, the average person can pay less for commodities because of cheap overseas manufacturing, but won't this lead to a caste-like structure stratified by IQ where most people are essentially servants with little opportunity for a middle-class life?

Except it's shitty for STEM professions too because businesses are cutting back on R&D spending.

>anyone who criticizes Krugman is a right wing nut
Taking into account market forces would improve the effectiveness of government programs. Ignoring facts due to petty partisan politics is a betrayal of more important goals like alleviating poverty in the inner city.

'Middle class life' doesn't really mean anything. It's like 'poverty line'. Standards of living are increasing across the board, and more than ever, people have access to what could be called a 'middle class life'.

>and certainly no fucking third world country is going to have sophisticated industries that is supported by tech or academia
Well, that is what they used to think.

And it was true-ish when they exported textile, cellulose, metal refining and other jobs like that to Asia.

It was for a while true when they exported menial labour jobs in mobile phone industry to China. Trouble is, restless natives make for development. I guess some thought that the Chinese could not advance. That was a mistake. Now Xiaomi is but one example of top brands ... coming from China.

I used to work in electronics manufacture, R&D branch. My company collapsed as all work was sent, first to Eastern Europe and then further on to China. And now much is moving to Vietnam.

I also used to work in software and management informed us how much more attractive it was to fire us all and have the job done in India using the latest buzzzwords and for a tiny fraction of the cost.

So my rather academic jobs have disappeared repeatedly. And I have a PhD in solid state Physics.

I have of course been to the Far East and seen how things work out there. Japan, once a well known manufacturer of cheap junk is now very academic. So is Korea. And Vietnam, is now stepping up the same ladder.

So I am not buying your arguments. The entire wold is moving up the ladder and taking the academic jobs too. Because they are not stupid.

You must have not gotten your PhD at a top school.

True, somewhere in the upper middle.

That said, if it take a PhD from one of the 10 top universities to qualify as academic then we sure all have a problem with our job futures.

Also in my present position and profession do I feel the outsourcing pressure from India.

>What does Veeky Forums think of economics in general and this guy in particular?
Is this a bait or you're just retarded? Nonetheless, what the fuck are you doing on this board?

Free trade has allowed to make new relations and trade deals with other economies. MNC's benefit from cheap labour from off-shoring and so total cost per unit falls which when sold internationally will create greater revenue which can be reinvested to become dynamically efficient thus reducing prices for consumer who also benefit from greater choice. Structural unemployment will rise but due to the domestic economy now able specialise in a good or service they have a absolute advanatge in will create employment where increased trade from other economies further raises exports hence more in employment and higher econmic growth will increase FDI leading to the multiplier effect allowing to reduced poverty and a more productive workforce.

>reduced poverty and a more productive workforce
As an end result, that is quite possibly true.

What worries me is the transition. Make too many lose their jobs at once (like Thatcher's reworking of the UK) and things get very unpleasant. The younger generation might not be sufficiently funded from savings to study at their best levels.

Workers unrest had a major impact on what happened in Germany in the 1930's. And it was not good.

Fuck off Austro-cuck

Kindly fuck off. Results are never exact and it is usually tainted by Political interests, but in the end when it's done right it works as a science.

Ancient Economists were more like Philosophers, as they did not have Econometric technology to test hypothesis.
So if we are going to debate which ancient economist had the best ethics, I'd choose John Stuart Mill instead.

Where there will be drastic job losses you could argue there will be the opposite effect of job creation where e.g. decline in manufacturing that occurred with China and UK in terms of textiles caused UK to specialise in the tertiary sector ( London service sector, finance). Overall econmic welfare would increase hence increased income/corporation tax receipts collected can fund government retraining programs for the structurally unemployed so the short term drawback of potential unemployment is countered in the long term benefit provided the economy has a competitive market. Increasing demand for domestic exports due to trade creation will mean workers will be needed to meet the foreign demand.

Government intervention for nationalisation of an indistry in a market where there are large number of those employed will counter any effect of unemployment (thatcher and steel industry) But will be less competitive and still likely to cause job losses from competitors overseas. The transition is still likely to cause short term growth and so the unemployment will not cause any major econmic distress except some regional upsets however the long term benefits outweigh any other short term drawbacks imo

Didnt read the article but see mcClosky.

Economists are very smart and all but the theoretical side of it that spins off far from reality with equation to impress rather than express is something that worries many economists.

Still yeah the whole "fucking math bullshitters" deal is usually used by incompetent members of the general public to justify their ignorance .

>That said, if it take a PhD from one of the 10 top universities to qualify as academic then we sure all have a problem with our job futures.
You basically need to have a PhD from a top 5-10 if not top 5 to get a job at an R1 in the US.

>Where there will be drastic job losses you could argue there will be the opposite effect of job creation
Given that " the opposite effect of job creation" is "job destruction" I am not sure what your argument is.

Jobs lost in Europe was often related to jobs gained in Asia. it is of course laudable that the Asians gained something, got jobs and improved their situation. What is not so pleasant was that the job creation in Europe took such a long time. The new jobs also had a different profile with much emphasis on academic skills. And these jobs took a long time to arrive.

Today the UK, especially the City of London, has a huge financial/legal industry raking in billions from all over the world. Jobs are well paid, hours are brutal and you sure need your academic papers from the best universities.

I am old enough to remember Thatcher. OK, perhaps the UK needed a shakeup. Quality was not the best and manufacturing, mining and heavy industry were all most likely coming to an end no matter what given the British conditions [1].

I am not for gov. interventions. However restructuring all industries broadly and simultaneously was rather brutal. Again the British conditions [1] didn't make for a soft landing.

[1] What I mean here is that Germany had a different system and educational emphasis and thus could retain their industries even under the financial crisis. Hardly anyone else were able.

Top-tier argumentation.

In a 1998 interview, Friedman expressed dissatisfaction with the policy implications of the theory:

"I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm."[58]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory

Happy now?

Economics is based on a model of incentive-driven decision making, so it's true that it's not purely empirical by any means. That said, the hard sciences are also based on models of the underlying reality of matter, energy, etc., so having an underlying "ideal" basis doesn't nullify it.

That said, economics obviously has a lot more bias and ideological baggage than physics or chemistry.

economics is important. it has society and beyond levels of impact.
a lot of it is falsly interpreting manufactured graphs and not properly correlated metrics. and people not understanding just how complex of a system were living, thus setting their feeble attempts at navigting it somewhere on 3d grid of ridiculous, frightening and entertaining.

krugman is a supreme narcist whos ideas are seriously wrecking the western economy as we speak. very idealistic, deeply afraid of beeing. perfect match for king nigger.

also AnCap ftw

CS major, I hear all kinds of bullshit about AI and encryption (e.g. FBI) all the time

>by keeping feeding parasites indefinitely we're pushing the economy forward

if anybody here's a cuck, that would be you.

>gold standard or some other piece of shit ideas that can be debunked in middle school
can you debunk austrian economics?

what does the FBI says about encryption that triggers you? You're probably just a privacy SJW because FBI's concept of master key isn't impossible or mathematically unsafe

Nobody cares/ takes austrian economics seriously anymore

There's no need to debunk Austrian economics. In economics, it's as respected as 'Flat Earthers' are. Why waste time?

>we cant spot the desperate samefag

dont you have some ethnic studies course to attend to?

Nice try, but I study math and econ :^)

and your IQ is 140+, obviously

Never had a test, because who cares about IQ outside of memes. Austrian economics will never be respected.

>if I repeat the same drivel over and over maybe somebody will hear me

you should not have used the m-word they cannot comprehend it.

lol you don't need to hear me. literally no one seriously respects austrian economics. it only has influence on small circles who lack understanding of the field.