why do plebs totally ignore economic history?

>>1627537
economics and money is a spook and therefore, not relevant

>>1627537
Plebs ignore history in general, what's your point?

Because economics is a bunch of horseshit. It produces literally nothing of value

We like gathering up facts and using them to build up a picture of the world in the past, but what normies see is just the raw data, it is difficult for them to develop an interest in it.

>>1627569
It produced the currency you use to purchase everyday goods, which I think you'd agree is quite valuable.

>>1627585
>purchase everyday goods
>everyday
>goods

>>1627585

Currency was already in use before economics was even invented. Also, currency, goods and credit tells you nothing on how you must organize them for a stable society, something economics is notoriously shit at predicting.

In other words, economics is almost completely useless at best and malevolent at worst

File: 1470897517826.png (158KB, 480x353px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 480x353px

>>1627537
>why do plebs totally ignore economic history?
Columbian exchange is the most interesting event in history, fight me if you disagree faggots.

>>1627604
>economics was invented
citation needed

>>1627643

The field of economics as a set field of study didn't come about until the Enlightenment. Before that, it was nowhere near the rigid, structured field of study it is today. All you had before that were some loose bits and pieces of knowledge on value, which is actually what economics mostly should be

File: Crump, Arthur on Baring Crisis of 1890.png (105KB, 488x324px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 488x324px

Like another anon said, plebeians generally eschew history because it's painful for most people. A few chapters and they feel like termites and induces depression. History also is saturated in details and requires an appreciation for nuance, something working class people are not encouraged to foster.

Economics is also generally disliked by the hoi polloi because it involves even more counting than history and is merciless. Most people are debtors and would prefer a sensation of self-righteousness to a vivid understanding that interest is the price of rented money. People hate even basic math such as fractions and percentages, much less entry-level econometrics.

>>1627733
Is economics really that hard?

>>1628464
Not him but modern economics has zero resemblance to history or other humanities fields, there's no philosophy and very little qualitative reasoning.

For example this is the proof for the most basic concept in economics, the idea that competitive equilibria in markets are also efficient under certain conditions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare_economics

>>1628492
So are the maths harder compared to, say, physics? I'm planning on getting into it, thinking that it's mostly number crunching like statistics, but not as much analysis as physics. I know I sound like an idiot.

>>1628582
>So are the maths harder compared to, say, physics?
of course not, the math is not actually that complicated in macroeconomics, which is what you're probabbly interested in

>>1627604
>2016
>metallism

>>1627604
>Explaining how the world economy works and functions so that we all don't fucking starve is useless

>>1627612
This. I did my high school history final paper on it. Shit was interesting as fuck.

>>1628685
That's good to hear. I chose economics, but was very doubtful if I'll be fine. Thanks, kind anon.

>>1627595
don't buy shit then, all you communists are just tsundere to capitalism.