3 ms·
It's interesting that you faced this issue and came away with the exactly wrong conclusion. Economics is, at root, a physics problem. There's no way to get arou
by loki49152 11y ago
It's interesting that you faced this issue and came away with the exactly wrong conclusion. Economics is, at root, a physics problem. There's no way to get around that. Every aspect of the field comes down to asking questions about physical resources and their uses.
People can attempt to ignore the fact that economics is a special application of physics, but they can't escape the consequences of ignoring reality forever. The belief that it's all just conventions and cultural agreements is exactly like believing that the Moon is just a bedtime story.
- jack9 11y ago> Every aspect of the field comes down to asking questions about physical resources and their uses. Nope. Moving 200 million in rock or 200 million in a paper check (or even a promise-based conversation). The extractable amount/usage of Labor and Resources outstrip the human ability to account for it. This has less to do with physics and more to do with "accounting". Without accounting you cannot have negative wealth, for example. This is not tied to physics. This is based on social contracts...all the way down to the currency. I am a little interested in this physics-based economy you speak of.
- imbellish 11y agoWhat you are referring to is more the traditional distinction between the materialists (i.e. Marx) and those that believe in market forces (i.e. Smith).