Why do economists disagree on fiscal policy

Economics is a science, so how come economists keep arguing and never prove anything?

(((((economists)))))

If economists understood economics, they would be businessmen, not economists.

Because nirp and globalization of markets is uncharted waters

>Economics is a science
wtf are you talking about? no its not a science.

>If economists understood economics, they would be businessmen, not economists.
Or like you know? (((Federal Reserve))) bankers.

Leftists and commies realized that they wouldn't be able to implement their policies if they didn't have a scientific community to back them up, so they sent in people to undermine conventional knowledge and make it seem like a consensus hasn't been reached yet.

>Leftists and commies
those sorts of people don't believe in the type of economics people study in business school.

>Economics is a science

there are people who actually believe this

It's the same reason (((scientists))) decided global warming exists despite an entire planet's worth of evidence which suggests otherwise

If you consider the problem, it makes sense. An economy is quite a fluid thing--which is actually why there is some convergence between fluid dynamics and economic engineering. If you can imagine our economy like a big body of water that we are trying to move and predict, there's going to be some disagreement about the method to do this. It's chaotic, which means the math you are using can only ever be a good estimation, barring highly unlikely events.

Some would argue that it's impossible to predict the future at all, but others have found cyclical events and other indicators that demonstrate some pattern-like behavior. That's my interpretation of it. It's the opposite of a binary answer, there are more possibilities than there are stars in space, but if you set things up just right, you can determine some predictable results in the immediate future. Similar to forecasting weather. Since there are so many answers, there are also going to be different opinions.

Because they are using incomplete economics. It's like trying to do physics without gravity. Thank Adam Smith for removing key ideas. I recommend the book Redeeming Economics by John D Mueller for more.

More on this. Before Smith, what he learned from his teachers etc, there were 4 elements of economics. Production and exchange were the two Smith kept. There was utility which we rediscovered and improved with marginalism. The fourth which has yet to be fully rediscovered is distribution.

Why does this matter? Utility based models can't explain many things that average people do. How does a mother allocate a limited amount of milk? Can't solve that with the current methods.

For a moment, this almost sounds like a bad reading of Irigaray.

>fluid dynamics and economic engineering
Similarities IMO are that quantities are modeled using real numbers and rates. Carrying this line of reasoning, you can increase the sophistication of your mathematical models to include differential equations and linear algebra

The alt-right/stormfag/Putin shills are out in force tonight.

Just because climate change is real doesn't mean you have to give a shit about it, Ivan.

It's like trying to predict the future because you understand physics.
Chaos theory says even if there are deterministic outcomes things can be so complex it is impossible to predict them.
Economists who use math to predict not admitting this

>Economics is a science

its not

Fiscal policy is a political position
Same with biology and "race exists"/"race is socially constructed"

>Economics is a science

Economists rarely agree on the topics, but it's almost consensus that free trade is good, protectionism is bad. That's the only thing that matters.

>Tim "Full to the brim (with poz loads)" Cook

>>>/reddit/
you're on the wrong website, faggot

>hey want this bag of money? all you gotta do is worm-tongue the plebs for me

>home economics is a science now too

You don't know where you are, do you?

I'm on a Jap cartoon site filled with angry INCELs.

I come here because you guys entertain me.

That is fine, all are welcome here. You will become one of us, soon.

Not likely. I've been on Sup Forums since 2010 and I still voted for Shillary. Before the primaries I was a Bernie Bro.

I actually voted for Bernie in hopes that Hillary would not get the nomination. At least I voted for a winner in the general.

>If economists understood economics, they would be businessmen, not economists.
macro-economics has hardley anything to do with actual business