Economics is a science, and it is what FUNDS science, so it should be allowed here. Having said that...

Because if there's not enough consumers/demand the business will stop offering goods/services. This always happens.

Because existing businesses often grow big and/or lazy at some point and become slow at adapting, until they either redefine themselves or get phased out by a new competitor. Once you gain a costumer, you don't keep him forever. If a better competitor comes along, he will ideally act in his best interest and leave you.

Chemical reactions in the brain are addictive and there is abundant resources

This is the kind of flawed reasoning that leads to globalism being justified. So autistic and thus working on a horrible model of reality.

Not sure where my reasoning is flawed. I did make the implicit assumption that a competitor has a realistic chance of competing with you, which I assume your criticism of globalism would come down to. I agree that this is a critical point which can not really be resolved without regulation, otherwise we will just transition into a world where the corporation you work for is more important than the country you live in.

Humans don't work like computer programs that take 2 inputs and spit out the greater or less than value. You confuse and conflate humans and business everywhere in your post (the part about not adapting).

>the part about not adapting
But in this aspect, businesses behave quite organic, since they derive their actions from human leaders, no? And your criticism of humans is the standard one which would refute the applicability of most business models. You have to make some assumptions on rationally acting humans, otherwise you can't reasonably apply economics at such a large scale.

You're assuming too much by "his best interest" and survival. A business is simply a means to an end, yet you are obsessing over there being no end by excluding the human dimensions from your understanding. Your model and assumptions are just horrible. Even when you say "he will ideally act in his best interest", it certainly is not necessarily to leave the business until you know all other factors. The truth of the matter is your economic theory is shit out of luck unless there is a coercive government to enforce humans to act against their native human psychology and true best interests. Humans were given the abilities to enhance and maximize their native lives rather than to enslave themselves to their products under an authoritarian enforcement of "buy in your best interests" which in practice often translates to a selfish and destructive domino effect on society. Most people naturally would not participate in this mantra unless brainwashed by jews from birth when they get their dick tips cut off.

Tell me where the invisible hand touched you.

>economics is a science
>has virtually no predictive power
>bunch of pretty "theories" which does diddly squat
The only parts of economics which comes close to anything resembling a science is behavioral economics.

"Rational" economics is basically a laugh-riot.

>I'll start of with Wealth of Nations-it is god tier.

Entirely outdated garbage.

Capitalism will soon be history.

>Economics is a science
[citation needed]

Here you go
>Economics is a science
t. economist

Redpill me on Karl Marx, how can I start with him?

>how can I start with him?
Das Kapital would be the nobrainer.

Economics is built off tons of assumptions in an irrational world, it's not a science if you ask me...

This.

Confirmation bias, that's why.

This, Austrian school is the only valid school.

>the study of the use of money pays for all scientific research

this is why economics majors need to leave

wrong
socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ie/p/blog-page.html
propertarianism.com/2017/06/12/the-not-so-austrian-school-vs-science-and-mathematics/

Wealth of Nations is a classic but it is no replacement for a modern economics textbook. It should only be read after you have a firm grasp of economics so you can spot which of Smith's assertions are outdated.

The only people who possibly could have known what was going on for sure were the ratings agencies.

OP economics is not a science. It is a type of highly highly applied mathematics. pls delete this thread because nobody on Veeky Forums or on Veeky Forums for that matter knows enough about econ to discuss it properly. All you're going to do is give people a bad perception of economists and economics students

t. one of the four people on Veeky Forums who actually studies econ

>the only people who could have known what was going on were credit agencies
and people who actually have an accurate model of the banking system and the business cycle (Austrians and post-keynesians)
>economics is not a science
neoclassical economics isn't, doesn't mean other schools aren't valid

>Capitalism will soon be history.
says increasingly nervous Marxist for 150th year in a row

Unironically this. Far too many people, both in this thread and in general, conflate the economic advising/ratings/whatever else with actual economics (as in a field of study).
In fact, if we're talking about academics, there were quite a lot of people back then that expected the financial crisis to occur. The thing is, there was no real consensus (iirc), and as a rule, advisors/cabinets tend to ignore the academics when it comes to politics.

>t. one of the four people on Veeky Forums who actually studies econ

Noice, I was beginning to think I was the only econ person here.

>Economics FUNDS science

Through what? How does economics fund science? Through industry? Industry that exists solely through the use of technology? Technology that only exists because of science? Yeah.

You're an idiot.

Something tells me there are more than only four econ people here.
t. micro grad student

Only a portion of Economics can be considered a science but Economists say the whole field is. Some Econ is basically philosophy.

You'd think there were only four based on how econ threads always turn out

>it is what FUNDS science, so it should be allowed here.
by that logics, fucking looms should be allowed here, since they are what DRESSES science

Adam Smith