Hey, /sci/. Econ guy here. Is the Australien case for protectionism

>>9117414
Theoretical economics was a mistake.

If it works empirically then it must be effective.

File: 1503133587374.jpg (136KB, 784x1172px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 784x1172px

>>9117414
Also econ as it's usually practiced is a pseudoscientific system of belief. Go back to >>>/his/.

>>9117414
Australian here too
Fuck off cunt, no one cares about muh voodoo demand n supply
Economics is pseudoscience and based on logical debunked propositions that 1) all human actions are rational 2) the market is efficient over command economies.

>>9117452
(1) Nobody thinks that. Only fringe groups outside of the mainstream can even be reliably misconstrued to have said that, because even they don't believe that entirely.
(2) Now you're just taking a piss at me. Command economies are obviously impossible because of price interrelations. This should not be controversial.

>>9117436
The empirical literature on this is very questionable, which is why theory matters. Are you able to answer my question?

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

2MB, 397x169px

>>9117513
>The empirical literature on this is very questionable, which is why theory matter
>there doesn't appear to be a correlation so I'm going to make one up
If you had said this in an actual scientific discipline you would have gotten an F-.

>>9117522
I never even implied that. I meant that there's a scarcity of research that adds up to me, and that if I can better grasp the theoretical underpinnings I'll probably be able to decide whether the research is wrong or not.

File: 1501175190577.gif (3MB, 240x234px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x234px

>>9117565
>there doesn't appear to be a correlation so I'm going to make one up

>>9117568
Dude, a paper looking at relative prices of exports without disntinguishing between internal relative prices of goods and external terms of trade and a paper that distinguishes between the two will have different conclusions. I want to know which is correct.

>>9117512
1) Economics does not follow the scientific method, it does not observe human behavioir -> make hypothesis and -> test these hypothesis to be true or false. Instead most economics except behavioral economics which is more psychological anyway creates constructs of how the economy works and then attempts to prove these without observation of actual human behavior -> thus it's a pseudoscience.
2) My point about Command economies is that modern economics relies on the praxis of a market, onto which the Keynesian v neoclassical divide exists. Yet this dichotomy is entirely false and their are other systems which if operating under a system of efficiency are plausible yet economics refuses to evaluate their merits and instead focuses on a false dichotomy.
Stay mad brainlet

>>9117593
Also all Economics relies on the assumption that all Human agents in a market or otherwise are purely rational and thus work at game optimal levels of rational reasoning, when this simply isn't true. Most economic theory has so many mountains of assumptions it's basically irrelevant in a big context such as how modern human life operates
Tldr:
> economics is pseudoscience and what normie brainlets do to feel smart

>>9117593
(1) It does follow the scientific method. It just uses sets of well-reasoned axioms that you don't find well-reasoned. You don't even have to practice behavioural economics to accept these axioms.
(2) Economists don't consider command economies because it is *absolutely and unequivocally* impossible for them to properly order preferences and compute costs and rank capital goods in production processes. Their merits have already been fucking debunked. This is conventional wisdom. There is no reason to waste time on it.
(3) Agents can be said to be rational when we're reducing agency to the marketplace, eg. firms are profit-maximisers, the demand curve is downwards sloping, etc. Within the framework of economic reasoning, none of these assumptions are unreasonable.

>>9117452
>1) all human actions are rational
I take it you heard this from the Austrians? You're misunderstanding them; if all human action is carried out to reach an intended end, no matter how irresponsible it is, then all human action is rational. Nobody who interprets the claim the way you do believes it; even the people who make the above claim understand that humans tend to act without consideration for distant future.
>2) the market is efficient over command economies
Why don't you ask Venezuela how that's going for them?

>>9117913
If you were even worth have the value you think you are to society you would know Venezuela is a mixed market CAPITALIST society and not a command/socialist economy.