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 2 months 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 2 months ago
Argumentative kid?
Cactus-Pete 2 months 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 2 months ago
There’s a very good reason why economics is called “the dismal science”.
Concretionist 2 months 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 2 months ago
No, you didn’t. At some point you’ll see why
Charles 2 months ago
Economics, the dismal “science”.
sandpiper 2 months 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 2 months ago
Nothing takes off like a discussion on Economics. If only it were an actual science we might learn something.
Bruce1253 2 months ago
That QED for the cognoscenti.
Richard S Russell Premium Member 2 months 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 2 months ago
Caulfield’s economy of words is right on!
tammyspeakslife Premium Member 2 months ago
Economics is confusing? Try marketing, so much simpler.. not really.
dogday Premium Member 2 months 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 2 months ago
You can’t spell economics without comics
tvstevie 2 months ago
Most people would have said, “Whatever.”