Is microeconomics actual science?

That depends if you consider ecology and network science studying the dynamics of actor interactions in economies as microeconomics.
Personally I don't.
>tfw economists get BTFO of their own job by the fucking life sciences
It's just shit like this

The ability to flex microeconomics into fitting many different themes and topics does the opposite of invalidating it. I think schools do a disservice by always presenting it from a fiscal perspective. In the end it's the study of what choices an entity should make and why.

"ledds just make sum azzumpshuns about the actors and bretend id's true :D:D"
T. Every economist ever

Some of it is. Not all economists reject empiricism and facts, really only Austrian """economists""" do.

Lol no. It's just libertarians jerking themselves off.
Captcha: Road camping

>Implying commie governments arnt bound by the laws of economics

Enjoy your smaller but somewhat more equally cut pie.

Someone explain this picture to me
I never understood how the fuck it is supposed to be read.
Why are "demand" and "supply" sets of pairs of a price and quantity value?

Because demand and quantity demanded are not the same thing.

I always wondered why quantity was the X axis and price the Y

yea no I dont get it.
Is there a unit for demand and supply?

For those unaware
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management

The higher the price, the lower the Quantity Demanded. The higher the price, the higher the Quantity Supplied. And vice versa.

Because the variable controlled by the firm is the quantity produced. A linear demand function is Q=x-P, where x is the intersection on the "price"-axis. Often when calculating economic problems, inverse functions are used, which enables the firm to calculate marginal revenue, marginal product of labor etc.

The demand curve shows a market's total demand. This curve will always be sloping downwards, since the lower the price of a good, the higher quantity will be demanded in the market. The supply curve focuses on the producer (The company who produces the good.) When the price in the market is low, a small quantity will be produced. The higher the price, the more the producer will produce. Comprende?

The unit is whatever is being demanded or supplied.

The demand is the total possible desire for whatever your widget is.

The supply is the total possible supply.

The curve is the sum of all current (ceteris paribus) intersection of the demand and supply. An increase in price will lower the quantity demanded, not the total demand, which is shown as a change in the intersectional point on the curve.

Equilibrium is the equalization of quantity demanded and supplied at a given price point. (There is no surplus or shortage due to supplies increasing or decreasing to meet the exact demand for that given price point)

thanks for that
I always got confused by the fact that it is supposed to be read with the price determining the quantities.

no, not really

>Some of it is. Not all economists reject empiricism and facts, really only Austrian """economists""" do.

They don't, but mainstream, austrian and every other branch of economics is pseudoscience bullshit.

What do you do?

Yes.

Procurement. It's actually pretty interesting and comfy if you like people at all. One of these days I'll probably want to move into a more pure economics field though, such as strategy.

Economics is mainly a bunch of guesses through statistical rapery.

>he fell for the falsifiability meme

Don't replicate = Not science = Pseudoscience.

It's deveiving because these look like functions at first, but actually they're mind maps of sort

Finance here, wish I went with math.

Not really, but its not science in the same way that math isnt science. The basic ideas in economics are pretty dang undeniable, and the rest is just the logical consequences of those basic ideas.

Whether or not those ideas make for good empirical models is another question.

I got my BS in economics. I dont regret it. School is garbage but you need a degree.

I still really like economics, and I hold it in high esteem. I know a lot of macro economics fails replicability, and thats embarrassing. Economics isnt all about empiricism tho. A lot of it is brilliant models of human behavior.

That said, my line of work has nothing to do with economics, so the actual subject matter I studied in school hasnt advanced my career much.

i learned ur entire degree at

stemez.com/subjects/science/ZEconomics/ZEconomics.php

>That said, my line of work has nothing to do with economics, so the actual subject matter I studied in school hasnt advanced my career much.
Should've know that flipping burger doesn't require a degree

Im in software, and Im doing pretty well if youll let me brag.

nah microecon is just relatively straightforward application of logic. It's macroecon where economists try to justify statism with bs econometrics

I have an intro to macroeconomics class this Fall and know absolutely nothing about economics, how fucked am I?

>intro class
>am I fucked

I dunno, are you a drooling retard? Econ is probably the easiest non female oriented major you can take.

Found the buttmad Keynesian

you're gonna be fine you dumbfuck. you're going to learn about supply and demand and equilibrium. if your prof isnt a hack you'll hear the name john meynard keynes. that's literally it.

You don't have to be a Keynesian to distrust economists whose theories involve sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling EVERYONE IS PERFECTLY RATIONAL AND MARKETS ALWAYS CLEAR AND IF THEY DON'T ILL JUST WAVE MY HANDS AND SAY 'LONG RUN'.

Kinda odd that you would be taking an intro macro class without having done any micro. But if micro wasn't a prerequisite I assume they'll fill in whatever gaps are necessary. Plus, it's an intro class. Those are usually designed to be trivially easy to pass.

I'm going for an EE degree and apparently this class is a prerequisite. I've spent the last 3 years studying math and know fuck all about anything but.

Youll be fine. Intermediate micro and macro still only use basic calculus.

Yes. Economics is the study of how humans organize scarce resources. Humans and resources are parts of nature, so it's a legitimate scientific study. It relies on limited applications of biological evolution, and psychology, but predictive results can be derived from concepts such as game theory for example.

You could conceivably say that its more a type of applied math than a strictly empirical science

No but it doesn't have to be.

What did Jane Goodall do that was fundamentally more scientific than studying the effects of price floors?

>economics
>science
pick one

Natural science is more replicable.

Last year of finance and some of micro later chapters are a total meme.

Ha funnily enough id say the samehinf about sociology

what do you mean by this?

I don't mean to type a whole wall of text just for someone to call me a commie, but pic related for example. Debunked through empirical analysis, but still parroted by the economically illiterate labeling others as economically illiterate.

THIS

I'm so fucking glad someone else has pointed this out. I'm convinced by this point that labor doesn't act like a conventional commodity and we need some theories specifically tailored to describing labor markets

economics is at its most valuable for creating models for abstract concepts such as this. even if this isn't globally applicable, the study of how to make and test something like this is the real art behind good microeconomic study. the chart by itself might be accurate, but you need to know 100 other factors to know how to apply the curves and limits. Digging into that makes economics practically infinitely deep. I love it.

These intro econ graphs are very basic abstractions of more complicated and thourough models, of course employment can't realistically be represented by a simple graph, economics is well aware of and accounts for many factors regarding the dynamics of the labor market.
Problem is a bunch of brainlets who took a piss easy intro course and think these simple freshman models are the end all be all of economics.
While for the most part economics has basically been applied math for the past century, now the big theme is the introduction of psychology and sociology to help build rigor into models to explain irrational behavior. It has a huge impact in econ and finance as well ( efficient markets).
Unfortunately for economics, it can never be a hard science, it lacks the ability to control variables due to ethical and practical reasons. This limitation sucks and leaves us to build models and intuit post facto.

that is a static representation, if the market reached an equilibrium obviously other things will come into effect that will change real wages.
another good example is the increase in welfare upon abolishing import taxes, it's also static and may be completely untrue in some cases. I don't think economists are unaware of it at all.

This

thats literally something from intro micro though

If you want to get into the study of unemployment, you should study some more advanced macroeconomics. Microeconomics isn't really about "economics", it's about how entities make choices like said.

Things like GDP, unemployment, growth, inflation etc. - actual economics in the sense you know it - is studied in macroeconomics. They provide a much more rigorous analysis of unemployment dynamics than the intro micro graph you showed.

I hate economists that treat supply and demand like some kind of god given law, and not just a graph that is made to chart supply and demand that changes depending on a number of circumstances. The economy makes the chart, the chart is not the economy.

Are you insinuating that the vast majority of empirical studies on disemployment effect caused by the minimum wage somehow don't support this graph? I'd like to see that meta-analysis

low elasticity of labor demand nigga

Most economists take more courses than Econ 101

Preaching to the choir here user

That's why austrian way is the correct method of doing economics.

First they laughed at subjective theory of value (Menger 1871).

They laughed at prices distortion (Mises 1912)

Them they laughed at the price calculation problem (Mises 1920)

They also laughed at Hayek's self organization market (1937)

They laughed at Mises's burocracy and public choice (1960)

Hayek's institutions (1978)

And they finally laughed at Kirzner's entrepreneurship (1976)

They said we austrians were "pseudoscientists" but in the end you fools just integrated the work we did 100 years late!

Are you guys going to accept ABCT in 2100 now?

Supply chain fag here.

Diagrams like that are merely a guideline, they aren't set in stone. The general idea of stuff like that is to use it as a tool to prevent things like the "Bullwhip Effect".

But yes, in my opinion it is a science. It's something that can be observed and tested with results that can be studied which allows modifications to be made according to the data provided.