Economics

It is a branch of applied math that is used to study the production and distribution of resources throughout the world

As someone who studies it, I can tell you that it has been leaving behind its legacy as a branch of political philosophy for several decades and has been transitioning into something much less politicized and much more technical, but for many complex reasons, the public isn't aware of that. People like are either ignorant or shitposting

He's just an antifa fag. Best ignore him

If economics is a science so is sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.
Hint: they're not

It's way, way worse than sociology or psychology in my book.
In the two above you can at least conduct scientific experiments to prove/disprove your theories. In economy it's next to impossible.

The scientific subset of economics is simply statistics but they have invented new terms for everything. Standard deviation renamed to volatility, variance to risk, etc.

>I assure you, mild mannered peasants, that our models are perfectly valid. After decades of study we have found it turns out that, mathematically, an economy functions best in the manner which also happens to maximize my profits and political power.

>The scientific subset of economics
That's just the empty set.

yes

this
you cannot call something not replicable a science, economy is inherently random and unpredictable

>he didnt read the white paper

>implying all science isn't more or less manipulated to do that

come on now user

What do you even learn about in economics that isn't common sense?

The principle of comparative advantage, I guess. web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

*Economics in One Lesson* explains a lot of common economic fallacies people commit.

Less. Reproducibility and consensus. Fraud results in getting thrown out of the academic arena.

See also Bastiat's "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen". A brilliant essay.

I'm not disagreeing, but research that has to do with military and political interests is the best funded there is and there is traditionally strong bias that validates the political status quo, see research on drugs for example.

Thanks, but I have a life, do you mind giving a tl;dr?

crypto isn't a fucking science is a russian roulette

dude, you're on Veeky Forums and you don't even want to read a single essay? is this the attention span of our generation?

kids these days

Anyone knows you can make a model and "arguments" for any policy or the absolute opposite policy

Economics its PR with maths

>I have a life
>Veeky Forums
Pick one

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life
>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

Yeah, I don't have the attention span to read and dissect an essay of what it's saying. There is a reason I'm not going to school for economics, because it's so dull and boring to read.

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

wtf i wanted to read that

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life >but I have a life

>Is economics a pseudoscience?

Keynesian economics is a pseudo-science.

It isn't a science at all, it's litterally household management.

>this is coming from someone who probably thinks Marxism is a science.

It's a social science. It's a positive disciple, but it doesn't use controlled experiments.

define best, kike

economists dont use the scientific method

That goes for any field. Shit models don't gather consensus and are left to loonies

No, it is just a soft science
But some economic schools of thought indeed follow pseudoscientific methods

>people who study economics say it's just applied math and statistics
>people who don't study economics think it's politics and psychology (that tries to use the scientific model for some unknown reason?)

At this point we don't even care if you don't believe us, just leave us alone if you're not interested in hearing what practical economics is actually like. We've had these threads over and over and it's getting a little old

If you do think it is a pseudoscience/"social science", why don't econ grads get paid the same as political science, sociology, or psychology grads, though? I'd like to hear what you think, if you're so sure you guys understand what the field is about and what we do

>just applied math and statistics

Nah that sounds like bollocks.

>the scientific model
No such thing.

Who are you trying to convince? The person who is educated in both math/econ and works in it, or yourself?

I'd like to hear your new definition, then. If you'd be so kind as to share your expertise on this subject that I have no doubt you're an expert on

I don't but surely there is more to it than just some use of math and statistics.

Thank you user for this cutie private fungible untraceable Monero waifu

le science meme

>what is socialist economics then?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research

It's optimization with context. The study of allocating finite resources in order to maximize something like profit or output. It's crunching numbers to make decisions in scenarios that often involve a lot of data that needs some level of interpreting. I have a math degree and I'm not going to claim practical economics work is extremely rigorous or groundbreaking math, but it is math at its core, no doubt. Someone working in the "economics" field doesn't sit around and write about what they think governments should do about taxes or minimum wage or whatever you guys think they do. They sit at a computer screen and work numbers so that companies know what to produce, what to pay, what to charge, and what it's going to take to make all that work. The dirty work for big operations with high stakes. There's no fucking scientific method involved. No divination and spell-casting. None of the pop-econ stuff you get in podcasts and highschool. It's a toolset for using math and stats in the real world. It's straightforward. It's useful, practical mathematics that requires some background in understanding certain (sometimes complicated) contexts for limited data. Usually a tad of finance and accounting here and there for the same reasons, etc

It's not that bizarre, really. Can't for the life of me figure out why this is so hard for people to get, and why people think it's political science part II or something. Why would a company hire someone like that? You think anyone out there is asking for more people educated in some sort of behavioral psychology?

>You think anyone out there is asking for more people educated in some sort of behavioral psychology?
we know they are
see, because you're a mathematician at your core, you've become a serious economist. you don't know (or pretend they don't exist?) about the shitty popsci version

user, I promise you they practically do not. A handful of behavioral, macro, and policy "economists" exist in the dark, wet corners of old university basements, but the average person walking out of school with a degree in economics is typically equipped with just basic understanding in finance, stats software, econometrics, and applied math. Not the hand-wavey bullshit that potential employers specifically do not need or want. I'm not trying to play it up as some sort of crazy rigorous data-science tier STEM degree, just pointing out that you guys think your average-joe econ student is studying something way more outlandish than he actually is. It's way closer to an education in finance, accounting, or something like management information than sociology or political science (even though, again, it is undeniably much more math-heavy than all of those, since that's just the niche it fills). Nasty "econ" has been done before and is still out there, but acting like that's what economics is defined by? It's like thinking mathematics is the study of calculating equations. Just flat-out misunderstanding the goal of, really, the bulk of the field at that point, you know?

so you be tellin me we wuz kangz n shiet?

A fraud as well. Marx wrote capital as a critique of political economy (and by extension economics), so anyone who claims to be a "Marxian Economist"or whatever has missed the mark entirely

>I just discovered the kangz meme and just need to post it somewhere

Well, not entirely. It can shed light on social mechanisms. However often economic models are manipulated to suit an argument or forecast or balance sheet. And almost always the models and variables are woefully incomplete.

social economics aren't economics, but a critique of economics as an unscientific field based on incorrect axioms as user stated above. the proper term for marx's analysis of economics is political economy, since he uncovers in a scientific way (yes, a scientific way, read him if you don't believe me) the relationships and laws that gave rise to the current power sctructures and economic models

But how good are those models really? Why not just study statistics instead?

>critique of the science of marxism from a popperfag animeposter

doesn't get better

>incorrect axioms
No such things.

Really? It's based on the quantity of money theory. You are honestly telling me that it's a pseudoscience? Have you even read The General Theory? Where do you stand on the national subsistence fund? Does it raise or lower the interest rate if it's higher or lower respectively, or the inverse? That seems to be where Austrian economics and Keynes essentially differ.

'Science by consensus' is literally the opposite of science.

With the exception of behavioral economics (which really triggers conservatards), yes.

>incorrect axioms
give proof that they're incorrect

They're not models in the way you're thinking. Most of it is fairly intuitive cost-benefit calculation, be it for determining what can be produced at x expense for y time under a set of other constraints, or something like "at what point can x be priced at so that our expenses balance out the best given our resources and production costs". You know, no huge leaps in logic for the most part

It's not bold modeling of some big, ambiguous system, right. It's almost exclusively a set of problems surrounding the inner-workings of an operation which can fairly accurately produce a bunch of 'data' on its expenditures, incomes, and market

>Why not just study statistics instead?
Statistics is concerned with handling, typically, way bigger data for way different reasons. Statistics, at least from the four semesters of it that I got, is focused mainly on probabilities, inferences taken from huge amounts of information, and forecasting (which does show up in practical econ a lot too, so to answer that part, I guess we sort of do?)

Economists do have familiarity with statistics on a basic level, just not at the hardcore statistics level, which, as I've experienced it, is just designed for doing different things with different data. More of a data scientist's or actuary's sort of niche, that's all

>he thinks I was defining science here
>he thinks consensus isn't a vital part of what science actually is
Fuck off postmodernist scum.

example of the scientific method being applied in 'marxism'

'Reality by consensus' is a post-modern concept, post-modernist.

accounting is a science

kek

bourgeoisie economics takes private property as an a priori law of society and is build around justifying it and maximizing it for those that have it

the fact that alternative modes of production have already existed historically? i cannot possibly reproduce 3 volumes of scientific work in a Veeky Forums post, that's clearly an absurd request

example of a virgin weab talking about something he doesn't understand

>build legitimate field of applied mathematics for dealing with production under constraints
>polishits hijack the layman's understanding of it to push their unbacked bullshit ideologies
>public ends up believing your subset of math is some sort of scam-tier pseudoscience designed to study taxes, money and wall street

JUST

bullshit, wasn't science to begin with

That's because they have no other criteria. The clue was in "part of".

if you go to a school that gives out BSc is economics, then you're training to be a politician - or a toady of one, no matter what you're taking.

>economics was never a science, it's just math
>bullshit, dude it was never a science at all

Watching people grapple with the "economics is not trying to be a science" thing is the most incredible experience, I swear
Incredible

>the fact that alternative modes of production have already existed historically?
And this is proof that which axioms are false?

the axiom that private property is necessary for production and the function of society in general, something neoliberal economists assume a priori

in case you're not familiar with the jargon on pol-sci, i mean private ownership of capital generating property and not your clothes and your toothbrush

>axiom
read a book

>"An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]"

private property being part of human nature and necessary for societal function is an axiom

>economics thread
>non-econ anons rush in, posting their political philosophies and attaching words like "axiom" and "science" to them

GET OOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTT
GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT
AYN RAND POSTERS GET OUT
BERNIE SANDERS KARL MARX RONALD REAGAN POSTERS GET OUUUUTTT

>econ autist is triggered that his bullshit apologia pseudoscience has been debunked since the 1800s

daddy should have bought you a real degree user :(

This article is interesting

forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2016/10/31/five-reasons-you-should-blame-economics/#525f1f11cccd

give me one economic theory that deals with non-renewable resources.

what a joke of a "science"

Yes it is a part, a cancerous part that is the primary vector through which social signal hacking may intrude, to induce scientists to organize around certain ideological schelling points for the sake of their careers. A part which may serve to *enforce* and *perpetuate* fashionable nonsense that may coincidentally have political ramifications, because by definition, once a bit of fashionable nonsense receives the high status anointment of orthodoxy by the consensus, any contradictory theory must naturally be bogus or flawed in some way, and hence never see the light again after passing through the doors of 'peer review'.

A very benign example of this comedy of errors would be the nearly 50 year crusade against animal fats that even still retains some momentum today, on account of an initial study funded by sugar industry giants that was then accepted by consensus, and hence, it's status virtually locked in place, impervious to anything reality might have to say about the matter, for basically as long as those generation remained.

No, but it has become very dogmatic, even to be a social science.

i didn't believe id read something this sound on Veeky Forums

is the quality of this board going up?

>proud to be talking out of his ass on a complicated subject he knows nothing about, mumbling something referencing his cult-like religious doctrine of an ideology

could have something to do with the fact that economics is not a science.

MODS should consider moving these threads to biz or x or something.

The issue is people who aren't educated in economics acting like they know what economics is. The "It's not a science" comments are the best demonstration of what I mean

Do you people do this with math and physics too? Just assume your expertise is on par with people who actually study the subject, despite them constantly telling you you're spouting irrelevant nonsense?

>he knows nothing about
>never actually read marx
>doesn't know his bullshit pseudoscience has been scientifically debunked
>doesn't understand what i wrote, registers it as "something"

hope daddy saved you a comfy position in his company.

>be undergrad student
>gonna do integrated masters on neurobiology
>course offers some serious optional courses
>there's also a choice of taking an optional course from another department
>choose econ cause i know it's gonna be laughable, easy perfect 10 compared to nanobiology for example
>some shitty business class
>professor talking to us as if he's teaching real science in orientation class
>students from my faculty and the chem faculty studying other shit while he talks
>econ retards looking at him like god

>fast forward
>big presentation day
>easy 10 for everyone from my faculty
>econ retards get 6s and 7s
>they don't even know how to properly use their own shitty jargon
>these are the "economists" of the future

but the way econ is taught in the neoliberal system isn't scientific, but rather serves as apologia for the current economic model. this has been scientifically proven 200 years ago, but of course you haven't read said scientific works. bourgeoisie economics uses scientific tools like applied math, but it's not a science because it makes the a priori assumption that private property is necessary.

your attitude is like a nazi-era biologist classifying aryan genetics as a science and insisting it's a science because he's certified in that field by the body of authority that benefits from aryan genetics being labeled a science

A healthy tip. Without consensus, there's no reality. The rest of your inane ramblings doesn't change the fact that consensus is a vital part of science.

I never said it didn't come with risks, but most of that risk is mitigated by other vital parts of science such as trying to falsify hypotheses based on observations, discovering new facts which change previous either drastically or incrementally previous know facts, reproducing results, etc.

Science is a continual process by which we acquire new knowledge which is verifiable. It's self-correcting by design. Regardless of whatever bias might be introduced into the research, the facts speak for themselves.

>never actually read marx
Karl Marx isn't economics you absolute imbecile. It's political philosophy. You have exactly no clue what economics is at all
>doesn't know his bullshit pseudoscience has been scientifically debunked
According to who, someone who actually studies economics or works in it professionally? I know a few of those myself, and unlike your sources, none of them are political propaganda peddlers, just people who are actually educated in the topic at hand. Weird how there's a disagreement there, huh? I'm sure the entire field of experts is wrong, and there's absolutely no misunderstanding on your side of things
>admitting to taking literally only econ 101
True expert in the topic here. Have fun being unemployed and dirt poor with a "neurobiology" degree, by the way, Dr. Med-school dropout