Why are so many people ignorant of the concept of economics? All over the internet you have people advocating for a push in science education, and they're the same people who have had very little to no experience in economics education.
One trend I've noticed especially on social media is Sanders' proposal for a federally mandated $15 minimum wage. How do these people not consider state wages and purchasing power?
>>1048645
Except economics is a pseudoscience. It has no predictive power over the economy, nor has it ever had any predictive power.
There is no consensus whatsoever within the economics community either. Many economists actually support things like higher minimum wages. You and many individuals like you simply use "economics" as an appeal to authority against anything you might disagree with, even if some aspects of economics actually disagree with your positions.
>>1048645
>Except economics is a pseudoscience.
There's a difference between nature being too complex to understand and outright making shit up. Would you call Psychology and Meteorology pseudosciences?
>It has no predictive power over the economy, nor has it ever had any predictive power.
It has explanations for trends, you know, cause and effect. You get some predictive power out of this, just not accurate predictive power. For example, you can usefully predict the results of price controls in a otherwise market economy, but you can't even pretend to know when the next recession will hit.
>There is no consensus whatsoever within the economics community either.
Yes there is. Economists agree on a lot of things, It's how important those things are that's debated because everything is a trade-off.
>>1048671
What do you expect from kids raised by teachers unions, marxist and Keynesian professors?
Dark times lay ahead we are now entering the post enlightenment era
You can thank Kant for killing reason, this is all its byproduct
But mainstream economics is split on the topic of minimum wage.
>>1048656
case in point. clearly has no understanding of what economics is.
>>1048691
neither does this twat, keynes philosophy is essential to capitalism and provides short run explanations for market cycles. you clearly also have no understanding of what economics actually is.
>your opinion differs therefore you do not understand economics
Ahahah, this is why no one takes you seriously faggots.
Your retarded pseudoscience is philosophy tier, it lacks the ability to conduct experiments and verify theories.
>>1048727
Philosophy is the basis of thought...
Everything is built from and it's actually very important. The fact you haven't figured that out yet is alarming, you must be 19 or an idiot
>>1048736
/sci/ would like to have a few words with you
I was once an economic illiterate. A typical stem-fag. I laughed at those studying economics, with their pityful lifes all around money. It was my aspiration to become a scientist and contribute to society and humanity. It even went so far that you could've called me a socialist. I took the economy and everything around me for granted, and thought that mankind could shape it to their will, and that the ''evil corporations'' where run by ''evil-capitalists'', who don't care about the earth and humanity and who stood in the way of progress. I was also an atheist, and saw religion as the cancer of the world.
Then I read ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'' by Adam Smith and I was blasted away. I also read Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. Been a classical liberal ever since, and started trading a lot. I've also realized the importance of cultural heritage and tradition and constitutional liberty.
I think that books of such importance as those written by Adam Smith should be mandatory in School. It's sad they don't teach you the real important things anymore. Western Schools have now become subtile Marxist institutions.
>>1049453
To be correct, M. Friedman was a neoliberal.
>>1049456
You wouldn't get that from certain books though.
>>1049453
>Adam Smith
Holy kek, opinion discarded.
I bet you use leeches instead of antibiotics too, right?
Because mainstream economics is too moderate/right-wing for libtards. Science may only be invoked to support leftist policies. Any scientific proof of differences between men/women or black/white, showing that their Social Democracy wet dream is untenable, etc will be ignored.
>>1048671
>>1048692
They're not. Both sides agree that the effects on unemployment and poverty will be negligible. It's another political talking point. Economists agree on most things.
>>1049472
What in Godsname do you have against Adam Smith?
>>1049506
>published in 1776
The industrial revolution was still in its infancy, the steam locomotive hadn't even been invented yet, there were only 800 million people in the entire world, and Britain was still a full-on monarchy. Yet somehow you think it's viable to use such simplistic laissez-faire thinking to run our globalized economy of over 7.4 billion people.
Basing economic policy off of Adam Smith's work would be like basing our medical knowledge off of the idea that swamp gas is what makes people sick.
>>1048727
Yet it nets me more pay than your average /sci/fag while i sit at home with my dick in my hand
The problem with the "soft" sciences is that it's extremely difficult to test a theory.
Economics has an almost infinite number of variables to account for because it works on a global scale.
Simply raising the minimum wage in one city or state is essentially meaningless because it still doesn't account for the whole economy on the very long term.
I do consider psychology and economics as sciences, but both suffer from a lack of evidence based practice and massive political biases
Meteorology is a science and is actually very accurate when you consider that the weather is a very dynamic and complex system.
>>1049556
>it's 2015
the idea of running the economy is even less modern and far from enlightened
