>The 2025 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion, and Peter Howitt for explaining innovation-driven economic growth, particularly Mokyr for identifying prerequisites for growth and Aghion and Howitt for their theory of growth through "creative destruction," highlighting how new innovations replace old ones, driving progress. Their work explains the shift from stagnant economies to sustained growth, linking technological progress with new ways of understanding and building knowledge, a process rooted in concepts by Joseph Schumpeter.This discipline sounds like a self evident sociology sprinkled with a little bit of math and statistics. This is the best social science can offer? Economic s as a discipline should be abolished and central banks should just hire unemployed math and physics doctorates and let them run the economy.
They gotta keep coming up with new swanky sounding bullshit so that people overlook the obvious fundamentals of debt being bad society being enslaved and the planet being destroyed.
>>16866471You realize this major is purly for nepo babies and ROTC slakes looking for easy A's right?It's literally statistics for idiots that are more interested in making up variable names than actually doing math.
>>16866471>for their theory of growth through "creative destruction," highlighting how new innovations replace old ones,They get noble prizes for defending unemployment and computer science layoffs
It just needs to be reshaped into a hard science, but imo current economics especially as a major is bs. You need to deep dive recent arXiv submissions and truly put in the effort for this so called "new science" in order to have it compete one day. It can truly be more math adjacent and could use more rigorous tools like physics already has. Academia just needs to step up.
>>16866844two weeks amirite?
>>16866526It really is bullshit used to justify extreme wealth inequality.
stemsoy screeching thread
>>16866471go fix econ by yourself dude
>>16866877extreme wealth inequality is unavoidable and the world has never been close to an even field any single day of the history of the human race. The real question is: do you want to live in a comfortable life in a world where there are also billionaires or do you want to starve surrounded by cops that beat the shit of you in a world where there are none?
>>16866471If you want to learn real economics then learn about austrian economics and the a priori of human action.
>>16866927>extreme wealth inequality is unavoidable but also you must love support and protect the rights of billionaires who give you a comfortable life (any day now) or you will starve and get beaten up by copsOne one hand, "the real question" directly contradicts the assertion of unavoidable inequality. On the other hand, the whole thing is formulated like a racketeer threat.
>>16866471Bahahaha all the smug pathetic COPE itt!You physics faggots are intellectual cowards studying the smallest and most easily reducible problems. You literally picked a field that has already been 98% solved by greater minds who tackled it when it was virgin territory, and you look down on us?How about you unlock your little clitty cage and be a man, tackle something with actual challenge/risk and unsolved problems, instead of worshiping at the feet of your far superior forebears and occasionally shitting out a paper on an imaginary mathematical scenario - the academic equivalent of playing skyrim while the bull rails your wife in the background? Oh yes, and what happens when you tackle a problem you don't have ABSOLUTE control over?Hilariously, embarrassingly wrong.>universes expansion>Saturn storms>stellar mergers*ahem* WRONG, WRONG, oh and WRONG AGAIN kekNot only this, but when you're wrong, your cucked little minds totally lose it lol. You start inventing new types of invisible matter and energy because your weak effeminate little selves would be so utterly mindbroken by the prospect of admitting fault or error in the Newtonian or Einsteinian BVLLS calculous (who's boots you drool over and kiss tenderly while calling this a profession) that you resort to pure schizophrenic fantasy.
>>16866973> tackle something with actual riskSounds like gambling desu. >Oh yes, and what happens when you tackle a problem you don't have ABSOLUTE control over?A global recession?
>>16866973>riskhahahha, hahahhahhahhahha, hahahahahahhhahahahaaare the rothschilds making you feel the risk little goyi goy?
would modern economics even exist if they stop focusing on growth?
>>16867020Macro would vanish.Without growth, there is no time dimension.Without a time dimension, there can be no dynamics.Without dynamics, there is no variational calculus.All scientific explanation ultimately relies on dynamics.What cannot be described dynamically does not belong to science.
>>16866964>changing the text before answering a de facto different "real question"Nice strawman.But don't forget: in the Khmer Rouge paradise (where all wages, money and billionaires have been de facto eradicated) the Guard that crushed your bones wasn't your equal at all since he could harm you and you couldn't possibly do the same to him, the same phenomenon occurred in Soviet Union, Mao China and so on.That equality is nonsense.
>>16867023Economics never assumed growth in the first place. Reread Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams and lookt at where they talk about that mysterious "growth" concept. At best you'd find "GDP" which is a crude indicator (far from perfect but what would be a replacement for it) of the size of the economy of a country. But it is a **description** tool and nothing else.
>>16866471>How the hell is this discipline taken seriously?One of the few theoretical fields that is actually profitable.Money trumps facts, every time.
>>16866927>extreme wealth inequality is unavoidableThere were no billionaires in the soviet union. Secretary generals had power and vast budgets, while personally they just had a good apartment, a driver, a cook and a country house. Likely unlimited cunny as well.
>>16866973If you call yourself an economist and never made a complex economic model you can play with in the computer you are a fraud. I've heard all the cope about how you don't use models but really that's just admitting you're a fraud.
>>16867237>and never made a complex economic modelEconomic models are already made, you dont need to make one. Economists only need to gather data to put into the models, new theory isnt needed
>>16867246Is what an absolute fraud would say.
>>16867267Fraud is just to lie and pretend to be something you are not. Economics doesnt have any theoretical challenges, theres already models for the economy. The only problem you face is gathering data, which is so big it can only be done by government agencies and they may or not share some with you.You for instance cant know whats going on in any country without data. Say you want to know how many houses are built in a given year or how much wheat is grown and where, as a data point out of thousands, you can only get that info from government agencies.Public corporations publish some information only because the government forces them to. Private companies dont publish anything.Thats the only challenge economists have, not cooking some Geometric Unity revolutionary model
>>16867393Just horseshit, fraud, a retard lying to himself while admitting his entire field is just a bunch of frauds "collecting data".You can get more reliable actual housing data that isn't just made up by special interests, from public satellite photos. You can explore models with different, hypothetical datasets and observe trends that you can then spot in the real data. There's a million things you could do but none of you do any of it.>there's already modelsIs a deranged thing to say. You're like a religious cultist telling me there's no reason to think, the high priests who never predict anything correctly have it all figured out.
>>16867417>while admitting his entire field is just a bunch of frauds "collecting data".Its just people collecting data and theres no fraud.>SatelliteYou can use a million different methods for whatever you want to find, some things are hard, some are easy. Thats all economists do, collect that data and feed it to some model that was finished in 1951. Realistically youd have to have a budget of billions of dollars to collect enough data to model an economy, and thats what government agencies do. By all means feel free to hack into the computer files of millions of private LLCs if you think you can do better than the IRS>no reason to thinkthe thinking was done in 1951, you just have to put data into the model.
>>16867427Does mass immigration to Denmark make the locals richer?
>>16866471Econ is flat-earth tierhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyPvBXpz_QQPaul Samuelson tried to upgrade their baby math in 1970 but they weren't having it.Ironically, it was not long after that Simons started Rentec and DID use some upgraded math from the particle physics crowd.The field of econ today seems like the kind of half-assed physics class one takes in high school that doesn't even use calculus.How can we trust econometrics if the economists can't properly metric?
>>16866844>It just needs to be reshaped into a hard scienceHow do you reckon we manage that? How to you perform controlled experiments on the economy without implementing economic policy?
Why does economics of all fields get this thread every single month like clockwork? Why do people who have never engaged in any way with economics as a field feel so compelled to talk about it as a field of study?>>16866471>This is the best social science can offer?Just because Samuelson said economics was the queen of social sciences doesn't mean it's true. It's a field of study studying one aspect of society: optimal allocation under scarcity. It has overlap with psychology, sociology, political science, etc. but doesn't supersede them.>>16866519>debt being badYou need $100 to fund a lemonade stand. I just so happen to have a spare $100, which I give you. You make $20 profit on your lemonade stand and give me back $110. We both made $10. Why is this a bad thing?>planet being destroyedEnvironmental economics exists>>16866526You're thinking of MBAs
>>16866844>arXivIn my experience, economics working papers aren't posted on arXiv. You need to look at NBER and other econ working paper repositories.>could use more rigorous tools like physics already hasIt's already being done, but knowledge transfer is slow because there's relatively little contact between economics and harder sciences. It's partly a structural problem for econ because our departments usually only recognize a set of top econ journals for tenure purposes, so you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you publish in a good STEM journal with non-econ coauthors that tenure committees don't care about. Similarly, I'm guessing a math guy might not get much benefit from publishing in a top econ journal even if it's selective.
>>16866938Protip for spotting pseudo-science: it's qualifier + science. Examples: alternative medicine, cryptozoology, parapsychology, austrian economics.>>16866973>>16867246>>16867393>>16867427You don't know what you're talking about. Econ theory isn't solved. It's not plug-and-chug. If it was, we wouldn't need econ PhDs. BSc monkeys would be able to do the job.
>>16866471Economists are famously retarded. Krugman has made bold claims such as "9/11 was good for the economy" and "the internet changed the economy about as much as the fax machine." Other times you have linguists like Gnome Chomsky larping as economists.
>>16867672For me, if you give a dictator money, which he steals, in exchange for a whole nations debt. And then you buy that debt. Well then you should lose that money.
>>16867674>Econ theory isn't solved.It is>>16867674>If it was, we wouldn't need econ PhDs.You can do research that isnt theoretical, just finding actual information about economies. Like biologists do when they go to the amazon to find new species
needs FE i c wut ur saying tho
>>16867167>changing the text before answering a de facto different "real question"Explain how it is different.
>>16867759>Like biologists do when they go to the amazon to find new speciesIt has no meaning without theoretical backing. The new finch discovered on that island supports the model that predicts that beaks will adapt to the most abundant food source in the area.Without any alternative models at all you can't actually evaluate the most successful model against anything, it becomes engrained as dogma and some barbarian without such limitations shows up to outcompete you at the exact thing you claim to be an expert at.
>>16867237You have to be a lazy son of a bitch to keep shitting on economists when you can find a more complex economic model online with literally two clicks.>economics never assumed growthAK modelramsey modelendogenous growthshut up kek.and stop quoting people who are completely detached from the growth literature. it just makes you look silly. go read Lucas’ Recursive Methods for Economic Dynamics.
>>16868141>>16867171forgor.
>>16867961>It has no meaning without theoretical backing.The theory already exists so i dont get what your gripe is. You seem to believe a discipline needs to keep developing new theories permanently for all eternity.Once you have one that describes reality its finished.Same way for any art, a fry cook doesnt have to invent hamburgers to prepare hamburgers.
>>16868232No theory will ever come close to accounting for everything, it's always possible to make better burgers. "Economists" like you make burgers out of literal faeces and tell us it's the final form of burgers.
>>16868242>No theory will ever come close to accounting for everything,Thats a minor gripe. Polishing some theory so it gives marginally better results is not important. For economics the best improvements in understanding come through having more data, not some alleged improved model.What are you even going to put in the model? Do you understand that any calculation requires data?
>>16868246I don't understand why retards like you post. Your goal seems to be to just make noise and pretend you're incapable of reading or understanding anything about any subject.If I want to predict if mass immigration to Denmark is beneficial or not I don't have the data needed available, it only becomes available if I actually try importing millions of somalis. Different economists will disagree on the effects because they do in fact subscribe to different models.The actual subject is so complex that no single model will ever account for close to every situation, it's all estimates and evaluating which factors will be dominant for whatever reasons. You need a new model for every situation.
>>16868318>If I want to predict if mass immigration to Denmark is beneficial or not I don't have the data needed available,Of course you do. Forget the silly labels like "beneficial" whatever that means. You want to calculate the effects, you are going to need data. The models are useless without data.Something as simply as newtonian mechanics requires data to make calculations, such as the position, mass and speed of objects at some moment in time, That isnt modeled, thats data you feed to the model
>>16866471>NobelThere is no Nobel on economics.
how many years does it take for compound interest to become not repayable?
>>16868815Not enough information to answer. If your wealth grows at a higher rate than your debt, the answer is infinity.
>>16868938This isn't true, most notably inflation puts a solid cap by being a deprecating multiplier. The limit is going to be some percentage of money supply.
>>16868966>>16868938>>16868328>>16868246>>16868242>>16868232samefagstop replying urself, schizo.
How much it costs to manufacture 100 meters of Denim fabrics in Vietnam and why.I dont ask the price, whats the cost of manufacture.Break it down by costs such as rent, wages, materials, taxes, financial costs, depreciation, and others.Just use your theory to answer this
>>16869070not econalso nobody gives a shit about denim fabrics in vietnam
>>16866471>entral banks should just hire unemployed math and physics doctorates and let them run the economyIsn't it already the case? I mean, they are not hiring the unemployed, but high-level mathematicians willing do work in finance instead of something more fun.
>>16869103>also nobody gives a shit about denim fabrics in vietnamWell i do so it cant be nobodyand its a question of economics. You think industry isnt important for economics?Now use that model of your you invented and tell me the cost of manufacturing denim fabrics in vietnam. And no, dont look it up, just use a model
>>16866471>new technology replaces old technology>new technology is good for teh economiez>I is smartz>gib Nobel Prize plzYea, you don't need a PhD in Econ to really have that insight. Let alone a fucking Nobel Prize, that's just common sense.Econ is a fucking joke of a "science"
>>16869417They should space Nobels every 10 years to give time for better things
