4 ms·
Hey EVERYBODY, this topic is all what actual economists, you know literal big E Economists, study; so, while actual economists can disagree about this topic, th
by blastrat 10y ago
Hey EVERYBODY, this topic is all what actual economists, you know literal big E Economists, study; so, while actual economists can disagree about this topic, they disagree from a basis of understanding some things.
People who have not studied economics--for which the prerequisite is calculus and also statistics so if you haven't taken those, you haven't taken economics--...people who have not studied economics, micro and macro, should read about this topic with avid interest, but don't debate it, you just have no idea what you are talking about.
Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to say, this discussion is like reading a debate of computer programming by non programmers speculating from the point of view how they imagine it might work, like the 5 blind men and the elephant...
The basic laws of economics have not been overturned. People respond to incentives; there is no free lunch; dead weight losses; transfer payments; too many dollars chasing too few goods; growth in money supply; water seeks its own level, tides, all boats; labor theory of value; national income accounting; trickle down, it's really a thing... I could go on, but what is the point.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tim333 10y agoA lot of big E Economics is pretty bad. Often because they try to use calculus and also statistics and statistics on human behaviour but humans don't behave that way.
- blastrat 10y agobig E economists are entirely aware of the pitfalls and the limitations of their field, they know it's far from exact, and they know it much better than people who don't study economics. Those who are ignorant of historical mistakes are doomed to repeat them. and in terms of rational vs irrational behavior, the behavior of fluids is describable without deriving from the behavior of the particles that make up the fluid; and the limitations of the approach is understood, again, not by lay people but by experts in the field.