Is economics a meme?* ____ *Don't answer if you're

>>8778694

Of course it is

>>8778694
It surely is.

>>8778694
t/his/ shit is a meme

>>8778694
No, it isn't. Science isn't going to work without funding. Funding is one of the most important economic principles.

I mean yeah that's how memes work, everything you can ever know except through direct observation is a meme and even most of that has been shaped by your culture so memes there too brah

>>8778694
Busy-ness. See mom, I push papers around all day. I'm important, mommie. I'm unimportant too, but without the mommie and daddie.

>>8778885
>>8778751
OP here. Why do you think so?

File: 1286920134492.jpg (36KB, 221x246px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 221x246px

>>8778694
>is the fundamental driving force behind what facilitates and permeates work and progress across our entire society a meme?

>>8778694
I (((wonder))) why economics has never worked out in the real world...

File: 1490482224032.jpg (53KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x667px

tfw applied math and economics major

>>8778694
It's basically the study of passing money around. How arrogant is that? You're not studying anything that will improve the world. It's the most applied of applied studies.

>>8778694
define meme and define economics

>>8781180
Aren't applied studies more likely to improve the world than theoretical? How does proving the ABC conjecture help the world more than applying economic knowledge to help a developing country?

>>8781180
>not studying anything that will improve this world

Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than anything else in the world. Economics doesn't just study the "passing of money around" but the exchanges of goods and services. Nations and businesses wouldn't be able to be ran properly without Economics

>>8781917
It depends what kind of economics though, and if you think nations are being run properly. Economics can also give people the tools necessary to fuck people over and fuck up the economy, and they can probably convince people that it's actually the right and moral way of doing things because economics is far beyond the average person and even economists don't understand everything yet.

>>8778694
The only correct economics is austrian economics, the rest is a meme.

File: 1472188984723.png (1024KB, 1270x1036px) Image search: [Google]

1024KB, 1270x1036px

>>8778694

Whats wrong with /his/ answers?

or a /pol/ answer for that matter

lots of /pol/tards around who seem to think themselves economics experts

>>8778694
No, it's just people expect it to describe things outside it's remit.

Microeconomics is interesting and useful, macroeconomics (besides inflation) is a meme

>>8778694
/his/ answers are the only correct answers to this.
Everything else is subjective.

>>8778694
Austrian Economics is the only real economics.

You cannot predict markets, and you sure as fuck can't control them, so let them run themselves.

>>8783415
>>8782126
If you still divide economics into schools like this then you definitely don't study it

>>8783419
Mainstream is a meme.

>>8784041
But positivism isn't

>>8778694
Yes
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
>Unlike engineers and chemists, economists cannot point to concrete objects – cell phones, plastic – to justify the high valuation of their discipline. Nor, in the case of financial economics and macroeconomics, can they point to the predictive power of their theories. Hedge funds employ cutting-edge economists who command princely fees, but routinely underperform index funds. Eight years ago, Warren Buffet made a 10-year, $1 million bet that a portfolio of hedge funds would lose to the S&P 500, and it looks like he’s going to collect. In 1998, a fund that boasted two Nobel Laureates as advisors collapsed, nearly causing a global financial crisis.

The failure of the field to predict the 2008 crisis has also been well-documented. In 2003, for example, only five years before the Great Recession, the Nobel Laureate Robert E Lucas Jr told the American Economic Association that ‘macroeconomics […] has succeeded: its central problem of depression prevention has been solved’. Short-term predictions fair little better – in April 2014, for instance, a survey of 67 economists yielded 100 per cent consensus: interest rates would rise over the next six months. Instead, they fell. A lot.

Nonetheless, surveys indicate that economists see their discipline as ‘the most scientific of the social sciences’. What is the basis of this collective faith, shared by universities, presidents and billionaires? Shouldn’t successful and powerful people be the first to spot the exaggerated worth of a discipline, and the least likely to pay for it?

In the hypothetical worlds of rational markets, where much of economic theory is set, perhaps. But real-world history tells a different story, of mathematical models masquerading as science and a public eager to buy them, mistaking elegant equations for empirical accuracy.

>>8782122
Oh I agree that capitalism has been used to take advantage of the less fortunate and poor, but i'm just saying capitalism (i'm in favor of a very regulated free market) has benefitted billions around the world, especially free trade.