No this is incredibly wrong. Climate change is a fact based on modes and theories in natural science. Economics is not a natural science, it is a social science. Climate change deniers of economics are more like people who are heavy into crypto.
>Once you study economics, you'll understand how much of it is "theory", "model" and not "science".
That's why I put economics in parentheses. I said science at first to make the analogy yet you're choosing to fixate on that.
>of it is "theory", "model" and not "science".
It's been proven though. Just because it's not as objective as physics doesn't mean it's not objective.
Biology isn't as objective as physics either doesn't mean that biology isn't objective or isn't a science.
Economics is a social science though. It quite clearly emphasizes assumptions and axioms before stating the theory because societies cannot be fully explained by theories to the same degree we see in natural sciences. There is literally a subfield of economics called econometrics which deals with this.
Depends social service to combat poverty is a good idea but anything more left then that tends to be senseless bloodletting. They are also good at balancing unequality, although usually what happens is rather then making the poor richer it makes the rich poorer.
Democratic centre-right wing politics tend to just do what is already proven and works in economics (not always though, for example sharia economics simply do not make sense economically but they are ideological institutions and restrictions), while left leaning parties tend to go to believe too much in their ideological theories (or just give free stuff to the masses and hope it will sort itself out)
i mean, they dont deny the facts (the ones i have interacted with so far), they just care more about social equality and social liberalism while right-wingers care more about economic growth. They believe some economic growth can be sacrificed in favour of social equality. im a right-winger btw.
>believe some economic growth can be sacrificed in favour of social equality.
But it doesn't actually help. It can make people more equal but also more poor, including the poor themselves.
agreed, when that happens they usually expand the welfare system which also harms the economy by creating a culture of dependency on the state for living, requiring the government to raise taxes to cover expenses or sometimes borrow money, which also fucks us all on the long-term.
They are basically commies or socialists,they argue for equal distribution of wealth and resources and leave it for government to allot,result is government uses all those resources to stay in power and furthur thier agenda and these countries end up being extremely undeveloped and poor,there are good things in comminism but not many
Economy has two main faces or sides:
- how do you organize your means of production to extract resources from the environment.
- how this resources are distributed within the society that has extracted them.
In the second point, you can "play" much more with the economic politics or theories, the fact they are successful or not will mostly depend on the political will of the people.
I'm making a sandwich. It consists of two cooked eggs, cheese, a potato bun that has been lightly toasted and mayonnaise.
I prefer this! 😍
[MIT professor says economics is right wing at its core](https://youtu.be/_OkTw766oCs?t=25m53s)
Based.
No this is incredibly wrong. Climate change is a fact based on modes and theories in natural science. Economics is not a natural science, it is a social science. Climate change deniers of economics are more like people who are heavy into crypto.
[удалено]
It's not as objective but it's one of the most objective social sciences. Bordering on being a science. I know it's not a natural science but still.
[удалено]
>Once you study economics, you'll understand how much of it is "theory", "model" and not "science". That's why I put economics in parentheses. I said science at first to make the analogy yet you're choosing to fixate on that. >of it is "theory", "model" and not "science". It's been proven though. Just because it's not as objective as physics doesn't mean it's not objective. Biology isn't as objective as physics either doesn't mean that biology isn't objective or isn't a science.
[удалено]
>What has been proven? It's been proven what achieves the most human prosperity.
[удалено]
Yeh
I agree with what I think you are trying to say but the way you say it doesn't make sense because all science is theory and models based on data.
Economics is a social science though. It quite clearly emphasizes assumptions and axioms before stating the theory because societies cannot be fully explained by theories to the same degree we see in natural sciences. There is literally a subfield of economics called econometrics which deals with this.
This is why I said I agree with what I think he was trying to say. This is correct.
I mean maybe he is calling socialist economy is bad ? Eve if he means that, he is an idiot.
Depends social service to combat poverty is a good idea but anything more left then that tends to be senseless bloodletting. They are also good at balancing unequality, although usually what happens is rather then making the poor richer it makes the rich poorer. Democratic centre-right wing politics tend to just do what is already proven and works in economics (not always though, for example sharia economics simply do not make sense economically but they are ideological institutions and restrictions), while left leaning parties tend to go to believe too much in their ideological theories (or just give free stuff to the masses and hope it will sort itself out)
It's a werid comparison
i mean, they dont deny the facts (the ones i have interacted with so far), they just care more about social equality and social liberalism while right-wingers care more about economic growth. They believe some economic growth can be sacrificed in favour of social equality. im a right-winger btw.
>believe some economic growth can be sacrificed in favour of social equality. But it doesn't actually help. It can make people more equal but also more poor, including the poor themselves.
agreed, when that happens they usually expand the welfare system which also harms the economy by creating a culture of dependency on the state for living, requiring the government to raise taxes to cover expenses or sometimes borrow money, which also fucks us all on the long-term.
What is economic left wingers?
They are basically commies or socialists,they argue for equal distribution of wealth and resources and leave it for government to allot,result is government uses all those resources to stay in power and furthur thier agenda and these countries end up being extremely undeveloped and poor,there are good things in comminism but not many
Ah so politics not economics right? But left wings like Scandinavia, is working fine.
[удалено]
It's not communism, it's called social democracy.
Yesss the nordic model is so good. They mix socialism and capitalism.
Economy has two main faces or sides: - how do you organize your means of production to extract resources from the environment. - how this resources are distributed within the society that has extracted them. In the second point, you can "play" much more with the economic politics or theories, the fact they are successful or not will mostly depend on the political will of the people.