Is economics a science? or is it social trash

No, the free market solves everything. This is an objective fact. The problem is that we humans don't like the answers it offers as the easiest. This is the problem with school vouchers: it solves the issue of educational funding perfectly, but parents don't know what will be best for their kids so they make decisions that end up fucking their kids over.

The same goes for healthcare. Letting the poor die on the street or get shitty healthcare is a solution and it works just fine; many people (rightfully) however disagree about whether or not we should go with that solution.

I agree with you. Maybe it's just the way my lecturer taught it/I never did further economics

but if the government didnt provide any education, what then? Im not talking about private schools, im talking about all schools publicly run

I'm just telling you how they taught it

Economics can contain a lot of math at the Ph.D level but it also depends on the branch you choose. Micro theory has a lot of math, game theory (which could be considered a branch of math) has a lot of math. Even Macro and studying DSGE has a lot of math albeit more accessible. Who cares if it's a social science or not, study what you want.

Private schools and charter schools are both better options for people of all classes. I wouldn't wish a public school on on my worst enemy

Public school education*

t. Post-keyenesian trash
Transportation is a merit good, yet when the government intervenes in that, prices rise.

imagine how much more exclusive it would be without the government
do they? idk tbf

...

Honestly I think that the quality of education would drastically improve, however there would most likely be some serious repercussions by not providing public education, as dogshit as it is, for the most part.

While everyone already pays for public education, through taxes or buying lottery/scratch off tickets, having to pay out of pocket for basic education is going to have two effects:

1. Some parents won't have the money in order to send their kids to school which leads to

2. The good parents who belong to a middle to lower socioeconomic status will most likely have to take out loans in order to fund each child's education, which will push them deeper into debt. The parents who don't give a fuck will just tell their kids, "fuck it, you figure it out".

So what will most likely happen is that there will be a greater divide between the lower and upper classes, in the present and future, taxes will go up for everyone, due to fact that 90% of the citizens in Kentucky and West Virginia will be unemployed and collecting welfare, and the population will increase because the less fortunate can't go to a sex ed class, thus exponentially increasing a segment of the population which is already breeding like fucking rabbits, contributing to the aforementioned tax increase.

I don't have any data to back this up(yet), but as a child I attended both public and private schools. I transferred to the public school system after 7th grade, and I fucking annihilated 8th grade. My high school was rated as one of top 20 in the nation, but 90% of the classes were a fucking joke.

As shitty as the majority of it is, it seems as though it is much less expensive to have government provided education.

Anyways, I was having a bit of trouble coming up with an idea for a future research project, and your post inspired me to look into this further. Thanks!

>t. an economicsfag

good to hear it buddy

>A social science
Meaning it's guesswork trying to predict the actions of mostly irrational actors.

can you please use specific examples

ITT people who think its societies responsibility to pay for their child's education.

Checked and no, it is only a method of control. Not science.

This right fucking here. Anyone that wants to do away with public education is a commie.

I don't have kids but am happy that my taxes go towards educating the kids in my locale so that I live in an at least somewhat educated society when I go outside to purchase bubble gum.

but society pays for all forms of education, either by directly funding the school or by subsidising it

So did they fix the part in which they tried to copy physics and thought of humans as rational when they ain't? And what about that part about equilibrium?
I imagine good economics to be anthropology meets psychology (already there as behavioral economics), meets systems science, meets network theory and then meets (behavioral) ecology and evolutionary biology. And a bunch of other stuff I know jackshit of.

No, because it cannot make objective conclusions. "Economics" is the study of the market, and the way that people operate when x,y,z happens. Because people are an impossible variable to pin down, no conclusion can ever be set in stone. It's very close to science, but it is not science.

Daily reminder that Biology, Chemistry, and Physics are the only real sciences.

no bro