Why do you make fun of economics?

>>9058089
> not a real science
> economics will inevitably crash

>>9058089
The fact that it can't get anything right for a start. Also how we're told that economics are the laws of nature, akin to physics, even though economic models keep fucking up over and over again.

>>9058089
Virtually no predictive capacity.

Everyone should know basic economics and finance well enough to understand the politics around them, but beyond that just not that insightful of a topic. Even most successful investors don't trust mainstream economics.

>>9058132

>Math, Engineering, Medicine are not science
>Computer Science, Economics, Statistics, Psychology & Social Science are not real science
>Chemistry, Geology & Biology are not hard enough to be a real science.
>Theoretical Physics not a real science because lack of experiments (String Theory)
>Experimental physics not a real science because lack of enough Theory

/sci/ 4chan board about "Real Science"

>>9058150
Math isn't a science, though most science is built upon it. Medicine and engineering are applied sciences.

>>9058150
Except economics is the least scientific of all of those, so by any measure of what constitutes a "real science," economics is still at the bottom. Real science has consensus and makes predictions that hold true at least a majority of time. In contrast, economics is a clusterfuck of wildly differing politically motivated theories between economists, none of which have ever proven applicable to current economic conditions. It's a modern version of fortunetelling where economists try to obscure their bullshit with superfluous math.

>>9058140
>can't get anything right
>told that economics are the laws of nature


literally none of that is correct. there are multiple schools of economics, doesn't mean they're correct. there are laws in economics that always continue, and like "natural sciences", they are assumed to be true until proven wrong

File: 500px-Supply-and-demand.svg.png (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>>9058217 >>9058163
The law of Supply and Demand in Microeconomics is solid truth, based on solid math & makes predictions that hold true all of time.

File: commies try again.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>9058163
>Most Bullshit theories are based on a genocidal ideology called

Communism

>>9058228
Except that's not even true all of the time. Now name ten other "universal economic truths".

Protip: you can't.

File: 1500428796275.png (159KB, 317x327px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 317x327px

>>9058326
Stanislaw Ulam once challenged Samuelson to name one theory in all of the social sciences which is both true and nontrivial. Several years later, Samuelson responded with David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage: "That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."

>>9058326
Marginal utility.

Supply and demand is fundamentally true, but that regulation can interrupt it's dictums is also true.

>>9058363
>>9058228
Why does photoshop cost money?

File: 1492622723110.gif (2MB, 397x169px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 397x169px

>>9058353
>>9058363
Great, only eight more to go.

>>9058413
Labor costs and muh added value.

>>9058524
So in other words you subscribe to the labor theory of value? Which one is it???

>>9058089
literally all wrong, has little to no utility

its all fake and made up

>>9058150

Not sure if trolling, but this is basically correct. Applied physics is literally the only science that justifies the term. The vast majority of "scientists" are academic rent seekers who should be dragged out out of their homes in the middle of the night and hacked to death with machetes imo.

>>9058658
calm down pol pot

>>9058658 >>9058150
>Applied Physics true real science master race
I agree

>>9058089
I think it is morally on par with taking candy from babies. Also it is very dependent on the sociology of the masses of babies it is exploiting. It's like having science behind rock-paper-scissors where the particular demographic you are trying to beat is dumb and always chooses paper so you conclude "scissors is always the best choice" as a scientific result.

File: 1500802571806.jpg (127KB, 700x675px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 700x675px

>>9058326

Praxeology