It’s confusing because it’s actually psychological… which is hard, so economists make “simplifying assumptions” which are almost always wrong. Or you can just describe inputs and outputs, which is boring (unless you LIKE bookkeeping)
If you laid a thousand economists end to end, they would point in all directions.
But absolutists are the worst: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, American economist
Interestingly, almost all of the Nobel Prizes in Economics awarded in this century have been for studies showing how the seminal work in the field, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) was wrong due to gross over-simplifications. To be charitable, Smith didn’t have access to the massive troves of data and processing capabilities available to modern economists, so his critics are kind of taking unfair advantage. And, despite that, they still can’t agree among themselves.
For my own part (to over-simplify even more egregiously than Smith ever did), I favor socialism for necessities and capitalism for luxuries.
pschearer Premium Member about 1 month ago
They just awarded the Nobel award (the Prize is different) to three economists for showing that free economies are the best.
Well, duh! Like free-market economists haven’t been saying that for about a century and a half.
Rhetorical_Question about 1 month ago
Argumentative kid?
Cactus-Pete about 1 month ago
I believe you never have a point. This kid probably belongs in Non-Sequitur since that’s what he’s good at.
Julius Marold Premium Member about 1 month ago
There’s a very good reason why economics is called “the dismal science”.
Concretionist about 1 month ago
It’s confusing because it’s actually psychological… which is hard, so economists make “simplifying assumptions” which are almost always wrong. Or you can just describe inputs and outputs, which is boring (unless you LIKE bookkeeping)
Ceeg22 Premium Member about 1 month ago
No, you didn’t. At some point you’ll see why
Charles about 1 month ago
Economics, the dismal “science”.
sandpiper about 1 month ago
Forget it, Caulfield. You’re never gonna simplify the language of titles. They are too important to the egos that wear them.
bobtoledo Premium Member about 1 month ago
Nothing takes off like a discussion on Economics. If only it were an actual science we might learn something.
Bruce1253 about 1 month ago
That QED for the cognoscenti.
Richard S Russell Premium Member about 1 month ago
If you laid a thousand economists end to end, they would point in all directions.
But absolutists are the worst: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.” —John Kenneth Galbraith, American economist
Interestingly, almost all of the Nobel Prizes in Economics awarded in this century have been for studies showing how the seminal work in the field, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776) was wrong due to gross over-simplifications. To be charitable, Smith didn’t have access to the massive troves of data and processing capabilities available to modern economists, so his critics are kind of taking unfair advantage. And, despite that, they still can’t agree among themselves.
For my own part (to over-simplify even more egregiously than Smith ever did), I favor socialism for necessities and capitalism for luxuries.
Smeagol about 1 month ago
Caulfield’s economy of words is right on!
tammyspeakslife Premium Member about 1 month ago
Economics is confusing? Try marketing, so much simpler.. not really.
dogday Premium Member about 1 month ago
Oh LORDY! First they don’t understand cursive. Now it’s words of more than one syllable. We are rapidly devolving to the grunt stage.
Happy Tinkerbelle Premium Member about 1 month ago
You can’t spell economics without comics
tvstevie about 1 month ago
Most people would have said, “Whatever.”