canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Great thread about prime numbers, was really interested until Evince completely derailed it.
True dat. It is what get for not thread banning the dumb twat
Great thread about prime numbers, was really interested until Evince completely derailed it.
Great thread about prime numbers, was really interested until Evince completely derailed it.
Exactly. She has no clue. There's criticism of every school of economics. She thinks Keynesian beliefs are above reproach. Ask her why she supports it her response is "because their ideas work". She can't even tell us what those ideas are.
More fool me for allowing loonies like her and Leon to participate, won't get fooled again!!
dearfucking lying idiot
how many schools of economics refuse math?
only one
the one that touts ideas that have NEVER worked in the real world
https://mises.org/library/mathematics-and-economic-analysisIt is not surprising, then, that many in the mainstream claim that Austrians disapprove of the extensive use of mathematics in economic analysis because they are unable to do math themselves. My guess is that most folks, including myself, who can survive a modern economics graduate program, are at least competent if not proficient in mathematics, so I am not sure that charge can stick.
Furthermore, the most vociferous critics of math in economics, Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, were both well versed in mathematics, Rothbard entering Columbia University at age 16 as a statistics major. Rothbard and Mises did not build mathematical theoretical models because they believed it was inappropriate for economic analysis, not because they lacked mathematical competence.
What is the problem, then, of using math for economics, and why are Austrians opposed to such a methodology? In a word, math is not an appropriate tool to describe human action. As Mises and Rothbard often pointed out, one cannot quantify human action. This does not mean that people do not engage in activity in which mathematics is not important, but rather that we cannot accurately use math to describe how humans behave.
Take the simple "Lagrangian Multiplier" that we use in basic graduate-school economics to "explain" consumer behavior. Here, economists construct an equation in which one’s utility depends upon, say, goods "x" and "y." The ability to accumulate such goods is constrained by one’s income and the prices paid for the goods.
In determining the "optimal" state that the consumer can enjoy, one uses tools of multivariable calculus to reach a point where "equilibrium" is reached. At that point, the marginal utility of good "x" divided by the price of good "x" is equal to the marginal utility of good "y" over the price of that good. (I have not done the mathematical work on this page for obvious reasons.)
The problem here is that this "solution" is nonsense. Utility (or consumer satisfaction) cannot be measured in cardinal terms. There is no way to take a cardinal measure of someone’s satisfaction. I can say that I like chocolate more than vanilla, but I cannot put that preference in cardinal numbers. An attempt to do so is nothing short of an exercise in fraud.1
dearfucking lying idiot
how many schools of economics refuse math?
only one
the one that touts ideas that have NEVER worked in the real world
im thread banning desh for trolling this thread and going wildly off topic. Tom if you wish her to be here anyway just contact me and I'll lift it.
Retroactively earning a thread ban - PRICELESS.![]()