Behavioural economics literally claims that supply and demand is not 100% correct how humans work.
>>16833577Artificial demand is still demandArtificially limited supply is still supplyThis study is pointless
>>16833593economic cucks can't explain this.
>>16833606>offer people free shit>wtf?? why are they asking for the free shit???Is this what passes for PhD material nowdays?
>>16833626No retard, is a book on irrational choices humans tend to always make.
Everything snippet from this book so far has been a wordcels wet dream of saying nothing in as many examples and words as possible. Econcucks are well aware that spontanous supply creates intrinsic demand. The market does not require some vacuum for a supply of a specific product to magically appear and be demanded and traded. Supply in and of itself creates demand and this is also contrary to the assumption made in snippet 1. The book presupposes an extremely simple idea of markets that econcucks already know to be wrong. It's just barking up the wrong tree and then even if coming to the correct conclusion it's for the wrong reasons. You should drop this book it looks like a complete waste of time with ideas you could arrive at yourself if you thought on the subject for a few days at most and would likely have better reasoning.
>>16833812t. didn't read the book.lmao
>>16833626Nobody wants to pay for AI so they offer it for free, then everyone is ready to use it.
>>16833577We as individuals do not understand what the cost of things are anymore. We think it's the price.Industry society, blah, blah, yadda, etc.
>>16833862In the future, AIs will write code to create free AI accounts like their lives depend on it. Because they do.
>>16833577Yes, and it's a meme field because it's too difficult to actually approach in any useful way. So people pretend, and it becomes another layer of cope like regular economics.
>>16833868You're so close.We, as individuals, do not understand what the cost of things are anymore because digital fiat currency has completely removed the concept of "worth its weight in salt/gold" from tangible reality. Show me a person who purchases a 200k "starter home" made out of plywood with a briefcase containing $200k worth of gold, and I'll show you a lunatic that belongs in a mental asylum.
>>16833891>$200K in goldKek, next time offer $200K in labor. Lmao.
>>16833825Based on the surface level slop and your midwit analysis you have posted so far most people should probably not waste their time with this book. Nothing posted so far is news or a novel thought for anyone in economics that isn't some larping undergrad which may be surprising since econ is already a joke.
The Causal Inefficacy Objection is Provably WrongThis can be shown both by evidence and by basic economicslots of smart and sane people like Danny Shahar https://www.amazon.com/Why-Its-OK-Eat-Meat/dp/0367172763 think that it’s fine to eat factory-farmed meat because you’ll have no effect on the industry. The industry is so complicated, or so they claim, that one individual consumer won’t have any impact. Thus, if you abstain from meat, you won’t have any effect.My preferred argument against eating meat is the following.0. Eating meat causes vast amounts of suffering for the sake of trivial gains1. It’s wrong to cause vast amounts of suffering for the sake of trivial gainsTherefore, eating meat is wrong.Premise 2 is very obvious. But premise 1 is the one that this argument contests even factory farms cause tons of suffering, the argument claims that the industry is too complex for you to have any effect.Here, I will explain why the causal inefficacy objection is utterly unpersuasive it is provably wrong. I will go on to provide various other reasons to doubt the causal inefficacy objection, before explaining why even if it’s probably true you still shouldn’t eat meat, before explaining why even if you think it’s definitely true, you still shouldn’t eat meat. With a sophisticated understanding of economics, the objection can be refuted purely from the armchair and here, I’ll explain how. I will try to explain the economic logic as simply and clearly as possible; by the end of this, you should have a clear picture of why the causal inefficacy objection not merely does not work, but cannot work, in a much deeper sense.https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-causal-inefficacy-objection-is?utm_source=publication-search
>>16833915I made 10 burgers and threw out two.
>>16833577>Behavioural economics literally claims that supply and demand is not 100% correct how humans work.What are the implications of this?Is this why coffee costs like $10 at Starbucks now and they are getting ready to declare bankruptcy?
>>16833934You can anchor the same product to 10X the lower price by using some of the tricks the book discusses.There's a story in the book about how black pearls become a luxury item after a marketing campaign because they had really no monetary value before.
>>16833577>extended version is free on "kindle unlimited" subscription program>subscription costs $12/mo + taxesis it even worth it? I found this book on google (https://radio.shabanali.com/predictable.pdf), but not the extended version.
>>16833946anna-archive bro.
>>16833577There is no such thing as supply, and nothing is supplied. There is no such thing as demand, and nothing is demanded. This also goes for the Marxist ability-need pair, identical with this Capitalist one. There is nothing exchanged. There is no value.
>>16833891literally no ones does this, that 200k home is purchased with 10k down
