Your opinions on the field of economics

I forgot to mention, in the past decade, there has been a huge transformation in the economic literature.

There has been a complete shift from theoretical papers with unrealistic assumptions to empirical, experimental and quasi-experimental papers. A few decades ago, maybe 3/4 of all papers were purely theoretical, based on ideal assumptions... now the vast majority of papers in the modern macro literature are empirical/experimental/quasi-experimental.

Just to pre-empt any response from clueless monkeys =)

>>8597754
Economics is a mix of mathematics and psychology in the following sense:

Economists use mathematics to model many different things and to get meaningful data out of economic systems. They use mathematics to study their systems. But when it comes to what they research or what they decide to implement or to push for it is all, like in psychology, based on their own political bias and what they want to be true.

If you get 100 economists and asks them to get some stats they will all give you the same stats.

If you ask those same 100 economists to predict how the economy will move in the following year they will all say roughly the same things, with roughly the same figures.

If you ask those same 100 economists to tell you what policy should be implemented to better that prediction you will get 100 different answers. The politically liberal will say: INCREASE MINIMUM WAGE, TAX THE RICH MORE AND IMPLEMENT A BASIC INCOME FOR ALL. The politically conservative will say: TAX THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS MORE. TAKE OUT FREE HANDOUTS GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT. DECREASE MINIMUM WAGE.

And some slight variation of these two main camps from person to person. There will be 1 guy who calls for the genocide of rich people. There will be 1 guy who calls for the genocide of poor people. Etc.

And then if you ask them to predict how their changes would help the economy then they would all come with the same conclusions: "See? Lower unemployment and more wealth for everyone!!!!!"

Even though only one side can be right.

>>8597765
>TAX THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS MORE
*less, obviously.

Regardless of school (empirical, behavioral, transactional), economics is based on relationships that are not economic.
1. Supply and demand is a conservation law, but the proxy of capital is not conservative;
2. Competition provides the motivation but not the means of innovation;
3. The marketplace is not geographic yet must inherit the finite transaction that localized geography provides, and the inclusion of production (labor, resources, transportation) in the same marketplace as the products that are consumed removes any connection between product and price the proxy of capital is supposed to represent;
4. The pursuit of profit changes the decisions made to the detriment of product and customer making the proxy for trade a product itself, which creates sinks and sources in the capital space.

When all is said and done, economics applies to anything but energy consumption is only glancingly applicable. Abundance and micro trade are about the only things financial economics can explain, and only for some local markets. The rest is just one big confidence game and casino better modeled with the pyramid scheme, the chain letter, and the shell game.

Even Daniel Kahneman's behavioral theories have been disproved.

The bullshit of the Quants is just that: bullshit. Econometrics outside of Operations Research is bullshit.

>>8597765
>But when it comes to what they research or what they decide to implement or to push for it is all, like in psychology, based on their own political bias and what they want to be true
Psychology studies the brain and human behavior. It doesn't have to be politically biased. Stop using common sense and start doing some actual thinking

>socio-politico-economics
it's just animals squabbling over power and resources

saged and gayed

>>8597791
>Psychology studies the brain and human behavior.

That is what psychology does as a science.

But psychologists, those guy are a problem. There are psychologists who would tell you with a straight face that there are no difference between the male and female brain.

That is retarded. That is obvious political bias acting on what they research and on what they conclude from their research.

And if you don't believe me some psychologists out there really hold this opinion then I will source you back to fucking hell.

>>8597800
Psychology is a philosophy of mind. Full stop. You want neuroscience.

>>8597811
>Psychology is a philosophy of mind. Full stop. You want neuroscience.

No, no. Wait right fucking there. Psychology is a "science". The point of psychology is for it to be objective. For it to find truths about our mind.

NOTHING should be open for discussion in psychology. Facts should be absolute. There should be no place for debate, just like in physics or chemistry. Neuroscience is something completely separate. Similar, but separate.

Psychology is a science but psychologists act more like political activists. Stop defending them, it is a corrupt field full of ideologues from both sides.