How do we save economics? I have read several papers each with

>>7975031
We can't save economics as a field because people rarely buy or trade rationally while the field tends to pretend like they do.

Ignore all the economists who exist off of government funding or work in schools

File: 51-0+mXsBCL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (22KB, 230x346px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 230x346px

book

>>7975057
>people rarely buy or trade rationally

I disagree. It's not simple Econ 101 bullshit, but it certainly is rational.

>>7975031

>Why cant there exist and objective system for efficient use of resources?

Thats an easy one. Everyone has different values. No two people value anything, say hot dogs the same. One person may value a hot dog more than another person and be willing to trade their hamburger for it. You can't have efficiency in a system where there is no universal value to measure efficiency with.

>>7975031
Someone needs to teach me game theory so I can work to prove that industrialized corporatism is a disease that destroys all meaning. I'm sure I can prove it formally is someone can teach me the formal language to express it in.

File: 7cb84b8736923dc26ea3024e8d204314.jpg (18KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 340x340px

>>7975180
>Someone needs to teach me
>not self-educating

>>7975057
This is a common misconception. Economists make the assumption that people act rationally because that's the only way to model behavior. If they attempted to model behavior without a set of guidelines, they'd have nothing to go on. There is some stochastic modeling and mathematical behavioral economics being done, but it's difficult and slow going.

Actually take an empirical or behavioral econ class and you'll see that economists don't actually believe homo economicus actually exists in the world.

>>7975199
nice dubs but
>imblyign kyouko isn't fully dependant on yui for studies

>>7975199
It's your economy, not mine. If you want me to help you optimize it, you'll need to motive me to help you optimize it. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose by teaching me game theory.

>>7975179
>thats an easy one. Everyone has different values. No two people value anything, say hot dogs the same.

I don't care if they value things differently. I want to know how to allocate resources on a much more basic level.

For example:
If we had a population of 100 people. And we had enough food to keep 40 people alive for 1 year. What is the maximum amount of human life we could sustain with that food?

Obviously this is a very basic question that can be answered by simple math. But why cant we start from a basis like this and expand it to the greater economy?

Why cant we study and implement sustainable human population growth strategies in Africa? Or find a way to efficiently cut back usage of fossil fuels while not murdering our economy?

The more I learn about economics, the more I believe people only care about using it to make dosh and not actually solve any economic problems.

>>7975265
>why cant we start from a basis like this and expand it to the greater economy?
Because everyone has different nutrient absorption rates. Your reasoning would basically kill anyone with an allergy and isn't much kinder then natural selection itself. We might as well just fend for ourselves however we please and let the emergent chaos optimize the parts that need any optimization.
>>7975265
>Why cant we study and implement sustainable human population growth strategies in Africa?
We can and do. You're just an ignorant rationalist that's drunk a bit too much of the coolaid.
>Or find a way to efficiently cut back usage of fossil fuels while not murdering our economy?
Because:
>find a way
Has its own cost. You can just throw resources at problems and expect solutions to appear. That's what governments already do through taxation and all that does it lead to greater military politics. We can't just ignore how the world currently works and design some utopia and expect everyone to just blindly upgrade without any resources to upgrade with. Often times throwing more money at something results in a loss of quality because "Oh lol I have infinite funding time to relax and not care how the rest of the economy works."
>>7975265
>not actually solve any economic problems
People that don't actually solve any economic problems while still participating in the economy are called con artists. Their entire deal is to act as parasites on any aspect of the economy that they can get their hands on. Do you have any idea how common corporate embezzlement is? How easy it is? How quickly it can be done once someone decides to do it?

You have to remember that economics isn't just about humanitarian aide, it's about every little thing that might go wrong because people felt that "the economy" wasn't favoring them fairly. You will never be able to design a system operated by people that is immune to people eventually deciding that they aren't favored by it to a satisfactory degree.

>>7975276
>Your reasoning would basically kill anyone with an allergy and isn't much kinder then natural selection itself.
And I fail to see how that is not a solution? I just increased efficiency.
>We can and do. You're just an ignorant rationalist that's drunk a bit too much of the coolaid.
We really dont. We send them food and resources and meddle with them, but we fail to place any controls on their growth or human growth in general. We allow births to exceed both current resources and projected future resources. And then we attempt to make up the difference.

The free market fails to create any solutions for anything it cant make a profit off. It is an amazing system for seeking out and maximizing returns, but it is shit at many other metrics. It fails to deal with externalities efficiently and many times works against fixing problems.(freerider/bucketofcrabs)

>>7975310
>I just increased efficiency.
Yes, at the cost of human life. People don't want a mode of existence that subtly kills people. There's no amount of efficiency you can put into a system that will make people want it for its efficiency. The only way anyone wants anything out of a market is when that market can actually pander to their desires. The economy is just a mass distributed reward system and quite frankly it's beautiful when seen from above. All the little people doing all the little things they need to do to live their lives and balance their checkbooks and values, having fun all the while. I can't think of anything more effective at meeting human values than this trade-based work of art you call the market.
>We allow births to
No, we don't. You don't get to come in as god and just willfully decide that people can't have children. They have children of their own volition and there's only two options for you to stop them: Education or castration. Both have their own economic cost and you don't just get to decide that you have 300 employees nationwide for a mass eugenics effort. People have to actually be willing to participate in any system you design, and that will requires you to understand their personal, subjective reward systems. ie., what the other anon said: People have varying values and your ignorance of them finer aspects of their values is the hidden source of your inability to just go and make an economy like you want.

Which free market are you sampling by the way? I know a lot of nations interfere bureaucratically with their local markets such that they can't rightly be called free markets, so I need to make sure we're actually discussing a truly free market here.

>>7975336
Thank you for your response. If this thread is still here tomorrow, I would like to continue our conversation. But for now I must sleep.

>>7975366
You're welcome! <3

Thanks for making the thread! I like to think there's always hope, even when there's nothing to do for it.

>>7975031
>How do we save economics?
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

File: 8MQMPoQ.jpg (184KB, 496x603px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 496x603px

>>7975031
>Why cant there exist and objective system for efficient use of resources?
Because that's politics, and politics is the opposite of objective.
It's probably mostly because people vote/make policy to serve their personal emotional needs, and are incapable of seeing things objectively.

File: Coleman.jpg (5KB, 233x267px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 233x267px

>>7975180
>teach me game theory so I can work to prove that industrialized corporatism is a disease that destroys all meaning
>I don't know enough to understand/prove "X", but I'm 100% sure it's true

>>7975265
>If we had a population of 100 people. And we had enough food to keep 40 people alive for 1 year.
Found the fiscal conservative.
You 'tards want to make modern economic/political policy based on a fictional lifeboat-rules scenario.
"Oh noeees, if 1% of the population just doesn't want to work, the whole system collapses!"

>>7975440
I think I know enough to understand/prove it, I just need to know how to say it concisely. It's the formality of the matter that eludes me. I just need a syntax cheatsheet and I'm sure I can prove it. (If it is a provable/correct premise, of course.)

The only solution is to abolish economics just like we've abolished other psuedosciences like eugenics and alchemy. As long as there are "economists," they will be used as paid shills for special interests.

File: 1419221211829.jpg (556KB, 1200x1220px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1200x1220px

>>7975180
>prove that industrialized corporatism is a disease that destroys all meaning.
Your own sentence destroys all meaning.
What is it you're accusing the modern economy of doing?

>>7975471
>the modern economy
Well first off,
>Ye Old Mom & Pop Gnome and Troll Shoppe
has me giggling more than ought to be reasonable.

Mostly because it rhymes I guess.

Second, the modern economy is in state of rapid change and it's probably only industrially corporate at something like 2% of global market output.

>>7975471
> i oppose to people working in where they're best paid
> I oppose to people wanting to fulfill their desires for themsleves