/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11411240
>australian economics

>>11411240
Micro economics is.

Macro economics is manipulative mystical bullshit

>>11411253

Not falsifiable

It is. But people in power don't want your average Joe to understand it. You have to dig through a lot of bullshit to find the truth.

>>11411279
If economics were a science, there would be a unified theory of economics. Instead we have as many theories of economics as we have economists. They can't agree on anything beyond supply and demand (and some even dispute that).

>>11411271
Microeconomics is absolutely falsifiable you retard. It's macroeconomics that isn't

We just dont understand the human effect in economics yet. we need to quantify emotions in the market. read pic related

It is but you need 140IQ+ to understand that.

>>11411329
>there would be a unified theory of economics

tell that to them string theorists

>>11411356
Physicists agree on 95% of physics. Economists agree on 5% of economics. Do you see the problem here?

>>11411279
In fact, people like OP are most likely kikes, who want to convince you that economics is just a bunch of nonsense and you shouldn't even bother with it. Better learn something else and be a good drone. And when the time comes, lose all your hard-earned wealth, because you didn't know jack shit about finance and economics.

>>11411345

No it's not. Give me one example

>>11411329
>>11411377
What economists are you talking about? A bunch of lying, disinfo shills that appear in the media?

>he still doesnt own gvt

The only economist you should listen to.

>>11411377
It's mostly because of politics that divides the economic schools of thought. For example, what incentive does a government economist have to argue for a $0 minimum wage (assuming it's beneficial)? What incentive does a private economist have to argue for a higher tax rate (assuming it's beneficial)? In physics you aren't forced to comply to a political or private entity that must be catered to and thus influences what is or isn't published. Your argument would be a lot stronger if you compared it to statistics rather than physics.

funny how we say economics isn't a science yet we accept Keynesianism as fact. same with neoliberlism and infinite growth. why are we so good at math and physics but retarded when it comes to the economy?

>>11411382
Hypothesis: "I think people will do x when y occurs"

Experiment: go and test what hundred people do when y occurs

Result: turns out x didn't occur, I was wrong

You can still conduct experiments, obviously it's much messier than physics but in theory you can still derive conclusions about what does NOT occur

However...I agree that MACROeconomics is not science, because you can never perform controlled experiments. In micro you can

>>11411417
He's right about a lot more than people give him credit for, but he's completely wrong on the motivations of what moves history forward. It was and will never be material, it's philosophies and agendas that set and move history. Just look at George Soros (inb4 /pol/) dude is a billionaire just giving it all away so he can fund social projects.

>>11411377
string theorists can't even agree on how many dimensions there are you cretin. do you see a problem there? maybe you see a problem with physicist being unable to unite relativity with quantum physics? do you? do you think it's a problem when half of what you know is incompatible with the other half - and both both halves make correct predictions?
I bet you know jackshit about economics - just like I know absolutely nothing about physics.

>>11411455
Would you shut the fuck up? Marx is literally wrong about everything, and he's a slave moralist cuck

>>11411417
Assuming you aren't shitposting this is pretty poor advice. Reading Marx to get an idea on labor and capital functions is definitely a good idea but his recommendations are terrible. Capitalism is, unfortunately, a necessary evil so long as scarcity is the primary driver of the global economy.

>>11411455
>(((social projects)))

>>11411436
This. If you unironically don't think (parts of) economics is a science then you're beyond retarded.

>>11411462
String theory is less of a science than microeconomics you fucking brainlet. Please shut the fuck up and stop trying to sound smart on a botonese water dancing board

>>11411480
blow me, commie

>>11411464
Try reading some of what he said retard, I actually like to understand my opposition instead of just shouting stupid memes for people with a child's attention span. Also the dude literally popularized and or invented the word capitalist, if you identify as one he's clowning you from the grave.

>>11411462
You forgot all of Newtonian physics, solid mechanics, fluid dynamics, optics, electromagnetism, plasma physics, particle physics, and astrophysics. Physicists agree on physics, economists don't agree on economics. It's interesting how much progress has been made in physics compared to economics, considering how both disciplines are nearly the same age. It's almost as if economics is getting tripped up by the fact that it's all bullshit.

>science matters

>>11411453

You can't falsify human behavior though.

Do you even know what science is?

>>11411240
It's not fucking science. It's just people.

If you understand the public sentiment you will understand how stuff moves. It has more to do with psychology then any real science.

Cheap money -> malinvestment -> recession -> oligarchy buys everything up on the cheap -> Repeat...

Until the cats get so fat that the public can see it as 'inequality' and finally grabs their pitchforks.

Every 8-9 years there's a new generation of suckers to scam so it goes in cycles.

A huge fucking recession is on the horizon, anyone who can't see this is retarded.

I suppose a better argument could be said that we understand economics (mostly) as a science in retrospective, but what we understand is fairly bad as a divination attempting to predict the future. Too many factors, including the predictor's own biases lead them down the wrong path over and over. You have to teach/say/predict something or else you fall into the post modernist trap, but it doesn't mean we have or will ever have a perfect understanding.