Why does anyone pay attention to people that study "economics"?

[CIYAM]

At least in the Keynsian variety.

The entire concept is built on infinite expansion which anyone with even half a brain should now know doesn't work as our Earth has "finite" resources (and our ability to find another Earth is not going to happen before we have exhausted this one's natural resources in trying to find it).

I actually think it is rather funny that we have people that are awarded Nobel prizes and given high status at universities (and in governments) when their pseudo-science is really no different to a cult or a religion.

(yes - I like to stir the pot sometimes - so come on you Keynsian fans and smite me)

[1714758695]

1714758695

[1714758695]

1714758695

[Meuh6879]

because, they are rich (and usually, talk too and work none).

[dewdeded]

OP: What about you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics and rephrase your question?

[CIYAM]

OP: What about you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics and rephrase your question?

How about you just post something other than a link (like say an argument or a point)?

(lame post gets a lame reply)

[iruu]

There's nothing weird in infinite expansion. The expansion is in utility provided. Making and storing a good movie, a game or a book doesn't consume much energy or resources, except that needed to sustain the human makers, which exist anyway.  
There indeed are theoretical thermodynamic limits to this (Bekenstein bound), but they are so high there's room for millions of years of growth.  

Utility gained per marginal energy unit is dropping for decades now. Eg. there are physical limits to how much food a human can consume.  

In the future per capita energy use will probably drastically decrease, at the same increasing the quality of life. Outside of obvious things, like increases in efficiency, consider improvements to humans themselves. For example, the eye - what would happen if everyone could get an artificial eyes with much, much higher light sensitivity? Energy expenditures for lighting would drop by orders of magnitude and never recover.  

[CIYAM]

There's nothing weird in infinite expansion

Except - double the world's energy consumption every year for the next 50 years are we are all gone (perhaps not weird - but the end of our species).

[unsoindovo]

because, they are rich (and usually, talk too and work none).

ahahahahaha

this make me rolling on the floor laughing

 

but at the end... i think the same...

just that I could not have said it better

 

[Aswan]

At least in the Keynsian variety.

The entire concept is built on infinite expansion which anyone with even half a brain should now know doesn't work as our Earth has "finite" resources (and our ability to find another Earth is not going to happen before we have exhausted this one's natural resources in trying to find it).

I actually think it is rather funny that we have people that are awarded Nobel prizes and given high status at universities (and in governments) when their pseudo-science is really no different to a cult or a religion.

(yes - I like to stir the pot sometimes - so come on you Keynsian fans and smite me)

I think it is because life is short and unless those resources are used up before they die, they do not care.

[dewdeded]

It's easy:
- Humans will always innovate, this will never stop. So there will always be increased efficiency allowing infinite expansion.
- Also as you noticed but didn't think through. Earth isn't the limit.
Just think about easy example: we may not find another earth, but maybe we soon put our waste on the moon and get raw materials from Mars or if the Earth gets to small we live in    space station like ISS.

[2112]

How about an answer through a negative?

Q: Why it is so easy for everyone in academia to dismiss the so called "austrian economics"?

A: Because the Austrians propose that mathematical modeling and statistical methods do not apply in the real world economy.

[CIYAM]

It's easy:
- Humans will always innovate, this will never stop. So there will always be increased efficiency allowing infinite expansion.
- Also as you noticed but didn't think through. Earth isn't the limit.
Just think about easy example: we may not find another earth, but maybe we soon put our waste on the moon and get raw materials from Mars or if the Earth gets to small we live in    space station like ISS.

It has been studied and it won't work. So think again.

[CIYAM]

How about an answer through a negative?

Q: Why it is so easy for everyone in academia to dismiss the so called "austrian economics"?

A: Because the Austrians propose that mathematical modeling and statistical methods do not apply in the real world economy.

You are therefore assuming I support "Austrian economists" (admittedly I think they are less deluded in comparison to the Keynsian ones).

But actually I support none of them at all - as economics is not a science.

[unsoindovo]

There's nothing weird in infinite expansion

Except - double the world's energy consumption every year for the next 50 years are we are all gone (perhaps not weird - but the end of our species).

maybe did you mean double world's energy consumption in the next 50 year!!!
...and not every years!!!

here some stats:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Uranium,-Electricity-and-Climate-Change/

i think who the correct increase of the world's energy consumption it is doubled in 20/25 years...

you do not think so???

[CIYAM]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Uranium,-Electricity-and-Climate-Change/

Very strange that you would quote something from a vested party (Nuclear energy).

Again - think harder please (don't post *ads* from funded agencies).

[2112]

You are therefore assuming I support "Austrian economists" (admittedly I think they are less deluded in comparison to the Keynsian ones).

But actually I support none of them at all - as economics is not a science.

OK, my attempt at answer through a negative didn't work. So here's the more straightforward answer:

Because the scientific economists are willing and capable of building the statistical and mathematical models that in practice do work and have a decent predictive power about the future of the economy.

[CIYAM]

Because the scientific economists are willing and capable of building the statistical and mathematical models that in practice do work and have a decent predictive power about the future of the economy.

Well - that is interesting - so who are these scientific economists and why haven't we heard of them before (or is this a joke)?

[dewdeded]

It has been studied and it won't work. So think again.

I dont understand you. Even if you dont like the space thing.

Point 1 still stands and justifies "infinite expansion".
If you deny this, you are saying "we reach a level where humanity cant research, improve and innovate anymore". Which is non-sense.

[CIYAM]

Point 1 still stands and justifies "infinite expansion".

We are currently at the point where finding new fossil fuel energy is so expensive that we won't be able to in fact use it in 50 years (there are plenty of publications to back this up).

To reach another planet is basically so ridiculously hard that we can only hope to perhaps go back to the Moon and maybe send a very few (less than 10) people to Mars in the next 50 years.

That actually won't save the other 8+ billion of us.

[CIYAM]

So what I really wonder is when the Keynsian trained people are finally going to admit that "infinite expansion" is not possible.

Every single computer programmer or mathematician knows this (it is so simple I could teach it to a child who understand math).

This is why economics is not "science" but instead is a "cult or religion" (i.e. basically just a bunch of crap).

[Flashman]

To reach another planet is basically so ridiculously hard that we can only hope to perhaps go back to the Moon and

... start drilling for oil there!