Do you consider economics as science?

This is true. Jews are actually crashing it regularly.

>muh speculation

you're a fucking retard, financial derivates exist to make the economy safer

Bourgeois economics isn't exactly, you know, predictive in any sense.

Jewish economics are the most predictive.

What the hell are "Jewish Economics"?

>private ownership of the means of production and the commodification of labor falsified and re-falsified every ten years
>keep doing it

Roemer (author of the work of the pic in OP post) was a marxist economist, and I can give you dozens of examples of marxist economicians

this

>what is experimental economics
>what is applied microeconomics
>what is reduced form estimation

Paul Krugman is jewish and he is the most inaccurate economist on the whole world

>economic analysis
The decent ones are basically math. I like math, but I don't consider it a science (your mileage may vary). The bad ones are still mathematizable once you parse out the underlying logic, though the proportion of the article that you end up salvaging may only have measure 0 (which is why they're bad).
>econometrics
It's a science, and a horribly imprecise one, (especially when compared to the natural sciences), but the decent ones tend to be generally accurate. I like to think of econometricians as analogous to tiny quantum physicists trying to make sense of a world that they observe at a scale where quantum effects are non-negligible.
The good ones make the best of what they can given their limited capability for experimental design, and you can tell from the methodology that the author understands both probability and economics beyond the superficial level that any high-schooler can parrot.
The bad ones largely used to be ignored until recently, when everyone started falling for the "Big Data" meme.

>It's a science, and a horribly imprecise one
I ask, why meteorology could be considered as science and econometrics not?
Because both of them operate with models based on probabilities.

He is not bankster.

The theory of meteorology is based on the theories of atmospheric physics + chemistry I think, and those are considered sciences.
On the other hand, econometric models (as opposed to economic models) are based on theories of psychology (microeconomics), business (financial economics), and political science or whatever the fuck goes into macroeconomic models beyond DSGE (which is basically mindless curve-fitting when not backed up by any theory).
These theories are less accurate (theories of human behavior rarely are) and are hence generally considered less scientific. The issue of precision doesn't figure into either case.

Economics is just taking someones data set and applying some autistic analysis like Bayesian dynamical systems then making some vague conclusions.

Well, Marxian, not Marx-ist per se. Quantitative juggling with more sophisticated-looking math and rigorous formalism to analyze public policy isn't really a major advancement beyond what was already a deductive argument about capital.
The way to "advance" Marxian thought is by actually resolving the contradictions of capitalism desu

The problem with economics has always been that economists have tried for years to prove to scientists they are a science themselves. And the way they tried to do this in the 20th century was to inject some superfluous """math""" into their theory so that their field ostensibly appears to be something other than applied psychology and sociology, which inherently that is what economics is.

Take for example, OP's picture. Tax policies are not modeled by a set of constants and a quadratic equation in the real world, because they do not satisfy the assumptions and constraints behind Roemer's theories outside of his sandbox playground that is anything but based on reality. You can have this same discussion about many of the other "quantitative" theories in economics, such as dead weight loss and externality analysis to the IS-LM model, because they are based on math that is completely unnecessary and out of touch from reality.

Econometrics, however, is really just statistical analysis. As far as I know, that's the closest thing economics has to a science.

Anyone who has studied econometrics knows that it has almost nothing to do with the economic theories someone might learn in 2nd and 3rd year advanced macro/micro courses. Why? Because those courses are full of bullshit.

>Take for example, OP's picture. Tax policies are not modeled by a set of constants and a quadratic equation in the real world, because they do not satisfy the assumptions and constraints behind Roemer's theories outside of his sandbox playground
>tfw I leaned about arrows impossibility theorem
>tfw "social welfare" doesn't exist because rank order voting isn't pareto optimal or something
I know it does, though, as my naive moral realism trumps all. Arrow should learn about the Real World (TM)

Yes, I think many times economicians are doing big effort to predict stuffs very uncertainly. My thought about that, sometimes economics is a subject to calm down politicians and for justificate their actions.

>analytical poverty built into and concealed by bourgeois economics serves as a cover for horrible public policy
Kek. Who'd have thought?

>Impossibility arrow theorem
>The only way get a pareto efficience is to have a dictator ruling.
My faith in society fell down.

You can actually get non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency and independence of irrelevant alternatives if you omit the "unrestricted domain" hypothesis. Which kind of makes you wonder why it's there in the first place. Why should social welfare depend exclusively on voter preference? He's just begging the question against planned economics

Democracy insures that science will never truly be usable in the ream of public policy. Everyome, including the economists themselves, have had a personal bias and stake in the subject their entire lives and a PhD will not suddenly make them absolutely impartial.

Economics can be real science but only if we dispose of democracy.

>Dictatorship disposes of personal bias and vested interests

It looks mathematical but most economists were too stupid for pure mathematics or theoretical physics so I'm not sure how seriously I should take it.

>Then a voter of type w is indifferent between policies (a,b) and (a', b') if and only if she enjoys the same after-tax income in both

Why do you think the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship?

Because he is a brainlet that was thought in school that democracy is the best and if no democracy then its dictatorship.

>Why do you think the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship?
We weren't talking about Democracy the form of government, we were talking about democracy the property of such forms of government. No?

>Dictatorship
>Literally defined as the abscence of democracy
>Hurr there's a turd option
>durr

...

So evolutionary biology is not a science, nor are astronomy and astrophysics. Also, all field work in biology is unscientific now.

This article try to explain why, rightist and leftist parties always prefer progressives taxes. After that you quoted, he divided the preferences of the voters depending on their wealth, the wealthiest prefer 0% of progressive taxes and the poorest 100%, then the middle class (in the median of the distribution of the wealth) will decant lightly for progressives taxes.

science
ˈsʌJəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

So basically, no.

>dog memes
go back to rebbit 2011 pls

Or Veeky Forums 2007?
(fuck that was a decade ago)

Pretty much.