To explain capitalism

[Terxpahseyton]

Academica explains Capitalism in SCIENTIFIC TERMS.
Let that sink, since you need to.
I give you space.
Ready?
Here we go:
SCIENTIFIC TERMS.
Well sounds good.... BUT IF YOU GOT ANY IDEA ABOUT SCIENCE: Won't happen.
Economic science can't measure economics. That is WAY to complex. Physics can measure physics. That is like the TRIUMPH of science. After that - way downhill. Even natural sciences not being EXACT science can measure stuff - like chemistry. Yes you heard right, to be an exact science actually is RIDICULOUSLY hard. Not even chemistry can meet it. Chemistry is a bunch "WELL - THAT HAPPENED" ..... Imagine what biology is.,.. (much worse)

That is why engineering science is VERY grounded!!!!!!!!!! Is like "The x, the y, the z and the a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h..... A LOT happened for our result to happen. A lot...." Engineering is the most complex science. Mainly because it is less about SCIENCE (HARD LAW we have little idea about in its implications) and more about IMPLICATIONS OF SCIENCE (SOFT LAW we also have little of an idea about but are open to implications).

NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Imagine S O C I A L L A W
Sociology GAVE UP on it long ago.
It tried, Failed. Looked else
Economics never failed. Never looked else. Never stopped trying.
But
KEPT S U C E E D I N G
In a lot of minds.....

Economics literally got NO standard of success, NO prediction quality, NO NOTHING MARKING AAAANNNYYY SCIENCE IN THE FREAKING THEORY OF SCIENCE!!!

Economics JUST IS
And endures
WITH NOOOOOO REVIEW OF ITS ACTUAL EFFECTS
NONE!
JUST ENDURANCE...
And effect...
Just endurance
And effect
Just endurance
And effect
Just endurance
And effects

And it works. Because the theoretical foundation of modern economics is the so-called threshold. Yes, you heard right. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE threshold.
Leading to illuminating question such as: How high.... can wages be to not prevent unemployment? How high... can taxes be to not prevent unemployment? How high... can employment be to not prevent economic growth, leading to unemployment? How high.. can economic growth be to not prevent investment?
How high... can investment be to not prevent economic growth? ERRRRRRRRRRRRRR ERROR NOT POSSIBLE
IT IS POSSIBLE
Just in THEORY - ACADEMIC ECONOMICS, ALL ABOUT THEORY - JUST IN THEORY.... there is no model for that scenario....
How? Imagine all the rich trying to invest but finding no opportunity, because their consumers, the normal people, got no money to spend to pay for their new product ideas.
Seems like a basic logical possibility to the basic logic of capitalism, right?!
Well academic economics got NO use for it. NONE.
And you wanne know why? Because it is binary. There are only two factors. IT IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN THAT A THREE-FACTOR-SYSTEM CAN NOT BE PREDICTED!!! LOOOK THE FRACK IT UP! TRUE STORY!
So economics CAN NOT PREDICT! Can not be an exact science! AND previous economic schools KNEW THAT! They were not about exact science, but economic WISDOM.
Nowadays it is about science, a science only knowing TWO factors. Exploitation and profit! Because a predictive system CAN ONLY KNOW TWO FACTORS!

I know, this sounds RIDICULOUSLY SCAM-Y. HOW CAN THAT BE?!

IT IS.

JUST LOOK

WHEREVER

YOU
WILL
SEE

WE
ARE
SCREWED

WELL not me.
I AM INHERITING
GOOD LUCK,
SUCKERS

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hit me.
Tell me I am wrong.
Tell me I am indistinguishable.
I am open. I know I got "weird". But I can be plain. Just hit me. I challenge you. I am serious about this. Just hit me.

Moderator Action: Please avoid making double posts that do not contribute something new and are essentially topic bumps. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Perfection]

Just because economics can't predict everything doesn't mean it can't predict some things.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Just because my taro cards can't predict everything doesn't mean ti can't predict some things.

My head explodes! out of all the shame you probably feel right now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Economics is better at explaining what has happened than what will happen. It is like accounting; a good view out of the rear window of a moving car.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The thing: How do you show the truth of such a rear window?! Because the value of that truth is about ALL politics
Another thing: Why are you not skeptical about the truth value of such an approach?
Accounting does not hold up. For a single company, you actually CAN account all the crap.
Further: Accounting does not claim to project, by itself. At all.

So really, what?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The look back by both accountants and economists is about analysis through particular lenses. It is not about truth. GAAP and other accounting rules lend a sense of truth to accounting when followed. Economics has fewer such rules. Neither can be trusted to predict the future. Some looking back can be useful when looking forward: the index of leading indicators, long term trends for stocks; etc., but reliance on them can be dicey. So we hedge, diversify, and try to reduce our risks. So what if economics is not an exact science? Most of what we experience in life is random and imprecise.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

edit: I could have been more polite and forthcoming in my responde, and you most certainly deserve it. But I am an ******* who already wrote his response and I am ate up by my nihilistic approach to even addressing this. So I hope you can forgive my nasty self for being such a nasty person to you. But I am honestly OUTRAGED.

Birdy, I very much hope you realize you could just as well have said "U mad bro?!"

Why we should be concerned with how meaningful economics actually is?! Are you really freaking asking me?!
Are you?
Accountants IS meaningful because a zillion companies tried it. We got no such luxury with economics! We..... Man. Why don't you have your dog take that conversation over. I foresee literally no downsides.
Like I JUST explained the problem of econimics. You go "Well... econims is accounting, really..." NO IT IS NOT AHHHHHHHHH


AHHHHHH



AHHHHHH


Yeah Ima mad bro

Accounting is LITERALLY COUNTING! You can - not - go - wrong - counting crap!

ECONOMICS IS LITERALLY QUACK SCIENCE!

THAT'S MY POINT BRO!

Counting stuff <----> using a glass orb to see the face of your relatives.

And you go "Well both in counting and glass orb business you see things, don't ya? Am I right? Aha! I am right."

 

[Perfection]

Did you flunk an econ class or something? Why you so angry? Your rediculous theatrics do a disservice to whatever points you have.

I mean to me it seems like concepts such as supply/demand curves are useful in describing market behavior and that can be useful for predicting future prices.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yeah and I mean you did not address a single point I had.
"economics 101 amirite? loool"
"all is uncertain, man"

That is the responses I get.
I suppose I just am crazy.

I mean I could repeat things I already said... but what is the point?
I am just a joker, after all.

I mean did you actually freaking get it what I am on?
Have you any idea what I described?
ANY?

Frack emotions, I want real talk.
Freaking real talk
And I get NOTHING.
Thanks for reaching out, man, but I actually aimed for freaking substance.
But yeah I guess things are useful
That is all.
Just all
I said nothing whatsoever.
Come on. I am the one supposed to reach out?! How about freaking penetrating even on the surface.

What I am angry about?! How about that frackery of an idea of creating future we got.
I mean honestly, does this determine my life? Well yeah, in many ways... when I am down with it, other things should and got my head spinning. But why must this be about my personal issues as soon as I get into the principal issues of economics?!

 

[BirraImperial]

Capitalism is the ownership of all forms of capital by the private enterprise...Having the State participate in as little as possible...Or at least that's how I see it...

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I suppose your thoughts on a good life are be well.

 

[Ryika]

I'm an Economist, and I predict a prosperous future for this thread.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes, due to the means of productions being... in my sole hands. And no one is even looking.
But very thanks for observing the catastrophe. I feel so much more joined. Almost like someone just acknowledging the point. Oh wait.... that is... like.... FANTASY. Weird communist fantasy, I am sure.

 

[Perfection]

I mean let's look at something like the CBOs projections for the AHCA, do you think such an analysis is a worthless endeavor?

Also when you screamed "IT IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN THAT A THREE-FACTOR-SYSTEM CAN NOT BE PREDICTED!!! LOOOK THE FRACK IT UP! TRUE STORY!" were you referring to the 3 body problem? If you were it would be a infantile misunderstanding of it and its implications. But I'm sure in your brilliance you were thinking of something else.

 

[luiz]

Are some economists too arrogant and treat theories as natural laws? Yes.

Does this mean that economics are useless and there are no proven laws whatsoever? No.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Also when you screamed "IT IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN THAT A THREE-FACTOR-SYSTEM CAN NOT BE PREDICTED!!! LOOOK THE FRACK IT UP! TRUE STORY!" were you referring to the 3 body problem? If you were it would be a infantile misunderstanding of it and its implications. But I'm sure in your brilliance you were thinking of something else.

A complete solution for a particular three-body problem provides the positions for all three particles for all time given three initial positions and initial velocities. - Wikipedia

Do you know what I mean by „three factors“? I of course mean INDEPENDENT factors. Not factors which are the result of each other!

And what do you give me? Position, time and velocity? Do position, time and velocity seem independent to you?
Come one – you are such a smart physics. Figure it out!
Yes I scream. And you thought you heard. Instead, you just went ignorant on me, whiteout understanding the mathematics.
No I am not talking of the three-body-problem.
I am talking of actually having three independent factors.
Seee.... that is the actual challenge I am talking about. Forcing you to face my GOD DAME POINTS!

I mean let's look at something like the CBOs projections for the AHCA, do you think such an analysis is a worthless endeavor?

Do better than throwing acronyms at me. I mean could research what that means and show why it its beyond the point - but you yet did not even get the freaking point!

Oh I am still angry? Yeah, because you craps think you are too smart for my point. Oh sure, all is fine. Only a dumb looser questions the system... God look at what you are even doing.

 

[Perfection]

Do you know what I mean by „three factors“?

Apparently not...

I of course mean INDEPENDENT factors. Not factors which are the result of each other!

And what do you give me? Position, time and velocity? Do position, time and velocity seem independent to you?
Come one – you are such a smart physics. Figure it out!
Yes I scream. And you thought you heard. Instead, you just went ignorant on me, whiteout understanding the mathematics.
No I am not talking of the three-body-problem.
I am talking of actually having three independent factors.
Seee.... that is the actual challenge I am talking about. Forcing you to face my GOD DAME POINTS!

I have no clue what you are talking about then. I attempted to look it up as you asked me to but I found nothing relevant. I would suggest that you actually provide links that describe this important mathematical proof.

Do better than throwing acronyms at me. I mean could research what that means and show why it its beyond the point - but you yet did not even get the freaking point!

It's a US government issued analysis that projects the effects of passing a certain healthcare bill. By having this analysis we can better understand what the results of implementing the bill would be. I suggest that as an example where economic analysis is useful for decision making.

 

[Ecthy]

Does anybody even believe that economics is an exact science?

 

[Perfection]

Does anybody even believe that economics is an exact science?

The imaginary person Terx argues against in the shower.