CAPITALISM BTFO!!!!!!!

How will economists/STEM-fags ever recover?!?!?!?!?!

Tell me, how does it feel like to be LITERALLY retarded?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Fuck Antifa.

>How will economists/STEM-fags

You are confused. David Suzuki is an actual scientist. His point is that "economics" is not a science - it's a codified agenda of self-delusion on a par with astrology.

Possible. They can claim anything they wish, but until an audit from the FED comes, it's all unverified and meaningless to us.

>Economic/STEM
>implying economic is a hard science.
Weeeeew lad

I don't know. Is it real if I whisper to a police officer I want to rape her and get sent to prison?

Words are only what we percieve them to mean. And prison is simply a hotel you can never leave.

i'ma pretty sure that he has Brian damage

Fuckin missed that one. (((social sciences))) and OP btfo

>kraut

Is it racist if I think he looks exactly like Pat Morita.

How can the economy be real if our eyes aren't real

>3 Std.

I think I got 3 STD's just looking at OP's pic

that's fucking deep

If economic systems only work by the transfer of representational value, does that means that at least one nation's economy must always be in a recession for the global economic system to function properly?

OP I think your kind of missing the point of what he means

>implying I read the article.
The only "purpose" of "articles" lile that is to shitpost.

Fucking IP man discovers the most basic shit of all time. "Everything in this world, is an idea created by man!" Fucking good one Confucious.

Zero sum fallacy.

Is this real life?

Magic Capitalism will not work without federalization or in Europe they call Socialism.

programs of the fed checks and balances

programs of Socialism checks and balances

WAX ON

As a trader of financial markets I agree completely.

It's a soft science. A branch of social science that combines sociology and psychology to try to understand how humans make choices with their resources.

As George Soros, I agree

Holy shit, does that mean that Democracy isn't a failed god, after all?

Good luck making that into a catchy headline bro

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you disagreeing with me?

It's not a revelation that Economics isn't a hard science. I don't think economists would make such a claim.

This

He literally does agree that economic fundamentalism is nonsense.

Because economics is a "hard science"?
If that's what your implying, I don't know whether to ask if you are a retard, or for your mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion.

>David Suzuki
I couldn't come up with a more generic English-Japanese name if I tried. Almost sounds like a parody.

How can mirrors be real?

It is not. But STEM friends acting all superior is totally unwarranted

It's NOT a hard science. Economics, like all social sciences, is a soft science.

You guys can really oversimplify it with the immature view that it's just like propaganda man from the elites or whatever but once you start taking averages and statistics and shit, you do find patterns. Those patterns are hard to refute.

I'm not. There's a need for the social sciences and I think it is a good distinction to make between a hard and soft science.

What a retard ofcourse ut's not real it's a system to make the sheeple not kill eachother for resources the problem is they kill eachother for it now and when resources get low they will kill for that again.

Economics? Oh right, you mean that dismal science.

t. Carlyle

It's the dismal science.

No shit. It's a pseudoscience. Economists only treat it as a science, because otherwise tgey wouldn't be believed.

Yeah maaaan
Like, money isn't even real maaaaan
Like, let's just, like get rid of it maaaaaan
Likem even birders and, like, imaginary nations maaaan
Like, we're all humans maaaan

No - it's not even a soft science. As squishy as sociology and psychology are, at least they are empirical endeavors based on observation, and subject to falsification. "Economics" is an a priori political agenda with zero empirical basis.

kek he's true

i'm a chemist and at least once a week i work myself into a rage thinking about how faggot brainlet economists actually convince themselves their field is a real science

economics is 100% pseudoscience bullshit, it is classified as a soft science meaning it is very weak in following the scientific method

it is the least rigorous "science" you will ever do

all the math lacks any rigor, it's all self-fulfilling bullshit

they START with the answer they want, and work backwards to design a grd 9 math formula to describe it

they are literally the cancer of stem

Stupid fucking government bureaucrat saying economics isn't real so we can vote for people like Bernie Sanders that'll pay his check - fuck him

kek

>It's not a revelation that Economics isn't a hard science.

It's not about "hard" vs "soft". Economics ISN'T A SCIENCE AT ALL. It's an ideological framework on a par with theology.

you need economics to justify the state stealing a quarter of your apple that you want to trade for a pear in the schoolyard. Git out commie.

What does he pay his bills with, if money doesn't exist?

I want him to teach me the science of getting stuff for free

>Anti-rational communists get butthurt about economics and proceed to say "ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND BRO!" to try and get the proles to give up their shit

How can economics be real of our wallets aren't real?

If the economy is real why don't I have a job?

Link to claim that money doesn't exist?

You have a history of empirical basis. It is both theoretical and empirical. It's very hard field to find accuracy in because the institutions it is studying are often legally erected and not naturally occurring. Then you have human behavior and habits changing with time, the models have to evolve with that. It's like saying political science isn't a soft science because it is a political agenda. Politics is a consequence of human interaction and thus we study it. Same thing with economics. These are very soft sciences but it's probably for the best that we try to understand these ways in which humans interact rather than tossing our hands up.


Psychology leads to Sociology leads to Economics

>economics is a form of brain damage
>mfw I'm studying economy

Because you probably studied in a STEM related field and fell for the meme.

PRAXEOLOGY NGGAS

No actually capitalism is a ideological framework. The study of different economic system is a study of human interaction which is ultimately a study of nature.

Hes right its not science.
But why is it brain damage? Does he say religion is brain damage?

Economics is about the most real thing there is. It's just the study of how material, real-world, physical resources are disturbed.

That's about as real as it gets.

>study
Kek

>Does he say religion is brain damage?

He's not wrong.

Read
Debt: The First 5000 Years

All money is imaginary, governments don't have to pay debts, barter systems are bull shit, etc...

Good book

Wrong. Economics doesn't NOT try to understand or predict human behavior. It makes highly unrealistic assumptions -- that space and time don't exist, that human nature is "rational", etc -- and pretends to derive NORMATIVE conclusions. And, coincidentally enough, those conclusions, if followed, just so happen to result in advancing the wealth and power of the already wealthy and powerful. It's a transparent political agenda masquerading as a "science".

Well that would imply most people are clinically retarded.
As a scientist, saying that is quite false

>if he says the thing i like isn't scientific i will say he's not being rational!
>that will show him even though a higher standard for science is an increasing standard for rationality

Yes, good book. See also his 'Talk at Google':

youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs

>Well that would imply most people are clinically retarded.

Again, he's not wrong.

You need to get out more.

Graeber did some top tier research.

Good bloke.

>having no idea what clinically retarded means
Stop posting

DAVID FUCKING SUZUKI IS A BUZZWORD RED HERRING LOVING FAGGOT WHO NEEDS TO GET SHOT IN HIS FAGGOT GOOK WIFEBEATING FACE

Again you mix up the entire field of economics with a particular economic system.

>that human nature is rational
I don't know what principle of economics you are referring to that say this.

>that space and time don't exist
Again.

>Wrong. Economics doesn't NOT* try to understand or predict human behavior.

*should be "does NOT"

Are you conflating the study of economics with economic policy?

Economic policy is derived from interpretations and predictions of behavior.

I know this is hard for you, but try to interpret his words as if you were not autistic.

But social "sciences" are?

^ the modern equivalent of medieval religious apologists

Underrated

>(((David Suzuki)))

I'll sell you this toothpick for 1000 dollars. Oh what's that? Based on observation, this toothpick is not worth 1000 dollars? Hmm, let me EXPERIMENT WITH THE PRICE until I get it right.

Economics is a consequence of human civilization. It is a study of production, consumption, and the transfer of wealth. I don't see anything wrong with trying to understand that.

Similarly we study theology to understand where beliefs arise without necessarily endorsing a religion because religiosity is a consequence of the human condition.


Also not an argument.

daily reminder that marxism and capitalism is equally bluepilled

So im supposed to assume suzuki is talking about figurative brain damage?

> David Takayoshi Suzuki, CC OBC is a Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist.
Kek. ok.

All these people bitching about economics are just useful idiots for the politicians who are frequently trying to bypass scarcity. If you talk to the critics for some time it all boils down to more leftist bullshit.Yes, it is a soft science indeed, noone claims otherwise. It is about making your statements in a formal way rather than hiding behind nice words. And even if most of the punctual predictions don't work, there is some undeniable truth in economics.

>governments don't have to pay debts
Spotted one of them.

>Economics is a consequence of human civilization. It is a study of production, consumption, and the transfer of wealth. I don't see anything wrong with trying to understand that.

Obviously material resources exist and can be studied empirically. I'm talking about the field of "Economics" as it actually studied in Western universities, and actually put into practice by Western political institutions.

>Similarly we study theology to understand where beliefs arise without necessarily endorsing a religion because religiosity is a consequence of the human condition.

Theologians do not "study how beliefs arise" -- they actively promote beliefs within a given theological framework. You may be thinking of Religious Studies.

>Yes, it is a soft science indeed, noone claims otherwise.

Complete and utter bullshit. Are you even reading this thread, or just randomly shitposting? Economics is not a science AT ALL -- not a soft science, not a hard science, not any kind of science.

>And even if most of the punctual predictions don't work, there is some undeniable truth in economics.

"Even if most astrological predictions don't work, there is some undeniable truth in astrology."

>as it actually studied in Western universities
How is it actually studied in Western universities?
>and actually put into practice by Western political institutions.
Then you are conflating Economics (the Study) with some particular Economic Policy

>You may be thinking of Religious Studies.
And you may be splitting hairs here.

I fucked up david suzuki's house in false creek when he was entertaining a group of fucking old kitsilano hippies smelling each other's lemongrass tea farts

Its indeed helpful to make a distinction between natural sciences and other sciences like social sciences.

Economics is a science, but not a science of nature, rather a science of life, psychology, consciousness, which, indeed, can be considered "unreal" in the sense of not really neing part of the physical nature.

Social sciences tend be be more "fuzzy" (behaviour of beings with free will can only be be predicted less precisely than e.g. effects of gravity) and often include elaborate use of statistics, while natural studies are more precise and tend to use complicated theoritical models.

Mr Suzuki is just one of these countless autistic "muh pure sciences" assholes.

You mean all the stupid stuff you have been spamming? I don't even care if it is not a science. Typical leftist agenda by you.

>"Goyim, people aren't rational, so give all your power and shekels to the government, we know what's best for you."

Also you don't know the difference between positive and normative.

M8, even if you like 'soft' sciences, it is always respectable and good to shit on economics. It's the worst by far.

Something tells me Mr. Suzuki and people like him are probably really bad at business.

As a hedge fund manager and investor I agree as well

Haha, yeah and science is a form of brain damage too because nothing can ever be certain and experiments are performed through the filter of our imperfect minds!

Scarcity and supply and demand are both observable phenomenons.
>b-but atrological signs are also observable! Economics is Astrology!
But how accurate and useful are the predictions made by astrology? And by supply and demand?

Your point seems to boil down to "it's a social construct therefore not real", well, by that definition math is also "not real' because it's simply a closed system of corollaries derived from an a priori accepted set of axioms.

Is this just fantasy?

>it's a codified agenda of self-delusion on a par with astrology

Tell this guy that.

>codified agenda of self-delusion
It's like musical chairs, we all make money until it stops

>hedge fund manager and investor
you fucked up by saying "and investor". That's like saying you're CEO and Janitor. Next time you LARP just say you're a hedge fund manager

Economics has never been a science.

>economists/STEM-fags
Not the same thing. Suzuki is a scientist.
And he is right senpai. Econ has a shitton of stats or math for no reason other than to make the underlying ideology seem more convincing. And I am not speaking about measurement, nothing against eg. purchasing power. I am speaking against all the bullshit modelling.
Google double hermeneutics.

>Economic policy is derived from
I mean in the real world where we live and where things occur economic policy is the product of tax evading corporate giants strongarming and/or bribing people until it's legal to not know who your holding company's clients are, and illegal to even make requests for such information.