• DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    1 year ago

    “For some reason people who study human society almost invariably develop empathy for others instead of worshiping the almighty Economy like any sensible person should. This is clearly the fault of those evil commies.”

  • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ok, so this guy’s account history is fucking amazing, just look at this absolute banger:

    Orthodox economic practices have existed for millennia, but the concept of “capitalism” was invented in the 1840s by the same people who claimed to have invented a viable alternative.

    Think of it like the word “cisgender” that was invented by people advocating something abnormal, without wanting to acknowledge that the alternative is the norm.

    galaxy-brain

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey! It takes years to learn to predict recessions via the flight of birds and analysing animal entrails! It’s complicated stuff, you would never be able to comprehend it! You should be thanking the economists!

  • oregoncom [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    Half of all economics experiments can not be replicated. If you go to their forums like ejmr you will realize these people are the dumbest dipshits alive. Even they themselves don’t believe the bullshit they’re peddling.

    • TheCaconym [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you go to their forums like ejmr

      I went and checked this place out quickly and in roughly two minutes I managed to come across antisemitism, racism, support for genocide, and some sort of fake university grifters. Amazing.

      • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        A community full of money-grubbing gluttons that think ethics are for the weak and regularly plot how to sucker people into doing hard work for them, pay them nothing, so they never have to lift a finger in their lives.

        Also thinks that all the environmental damage is worth it to respect ‘property rights’

        “Hey everyone, I just came up with a joke about how da jooz are greedy penny-pinchers!”

        Do anglos not realize that they embody almost every antisemitic stereotype out there? /Pol/ is nothing but mental masturbation about how white people will dominate the earth just because they can.

    • aqwxcvbnji [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Half of all economics experiments can not be replicated

      Is there an actual study which makes this claim, like the one that exists in psychology? Or is this your intuïtion? Not doubting you btw. As a marxist economist, I’d just like the citation.

    • DragonBallZinn [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but caring about things is STUPID and is for STUPID BABBIES!. I’m a big boy and know that the multinational corporation is always right. Porky’s greed helps us become the best, most productive versions of ourselves to better serve our purpose to porky, if you don’t like that then you’re clearly not a big boy like me.

      /s

    • star_wraith [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They love it because even though neoclassical economics was discredited nearly a century ago during the Great Depression, it still lives on as conservatives’ understanding of what “economics” is. But all they do is argue from pseudo-psychological first principles like “people are always selfish” or “people always maximize their utility” and try and construct an entire reductive science around that, wholly unconstrained by empirical evidence. And that science conveniently fits in with their conservative political ideas like “giving poor people money will only be wasted”.

      Meanwhile Marxian economics is the opposite. The idea isn’t to create “first principles” and try and determine everything from that. It’s overdeterministic. The point isn’t to be able to explain every aspect of the economy like why a basketball autographed by an NBA star is worth more a normal basketball when the socially necessary labor time of both is the same (we actually can, but that’s beside the point). Marxian economics tries to explain the broader trends like commodity production but is flexible enough and open to there being exceptions to the rules.

      If you are involved with a real science like physics, you will understand why the first (conservative neoclassical economics) is not a science and the second (Marxian economics) is.

      • davel [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        neoclassical economics was discredited nearly a century ago during the Great Depression

        And they’ve replaced it with neoliberal economics, which is even wronger.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Marx wrote in Capital that basically entire classical economy since John Stuart Mill junior was reactionary intellectual masturbation focused on denying the LTV. And fast forward 150 years and it’s exactly right, pre-Marx proponents of LTV are almost entirely forgotten and Marx is painted as literal Satan and anathema to all that is good and proper in economy, because they weren’t able to silence his writings.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Weirdly enough I feel like physics and Marx should attract similar people. Physics is about discovering the fundamental laws underlying seemingly disparate phenomena. The average physicist gets a half chubb talking about the unification of electricity and magnetism as a single force. Why shouldn’t every physicist also read about commodity fetishism and the reproduction of an inverted ideology in which social relations between humans appear as relations among things? It’s beautifully elegant.

  • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is the most reddit comment I’ve ever seen

    Holy fuck, this part especially is just chefs-kiss

    the entire subject of sociology is nothing more than a conduit for Kremlin propaganda

    B you live like this?

  • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s basically social science infused with anti-western Marxist pseudoscience, minus economics because Marxist economic propaganda has been discredited beyond repair

    Lol. Lmao even

  • mayo_cider [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    Funnily enough in my experience if you talk to anyone in academia outside of econ, it’s the first field anyone makes fun of (because in it’s current state it’s not a serious field of study)

    Even the STEM assholes I’ve met usually take sociology at least just as or more seriously than economics (at least as a major, they still believe in their own investment strategies)

    • IzyaKatzmann [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves, and the sentiment I’ve always seen of, “I know how the world works, it’s money

      I don’t see the need for the condescension. My background was in biology, I spoke to another friend about how competition is inefficient and cooperation is more fruitful from an ecological (read: natural science) standpoint. And he started to debate me, my claims are empirical, they don’t rely on axioms on what human nature is as argued by philosophers of old (not hating on them, it’s the superficial interpretation some econfolk seem to have which is what I find erroneous) and what it means to be rational. I did not bother to try and explain, the Um, akshully they came at me with was so off-putting.

      • Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah but you see, you failed to take into account my economic model that says you’re wrong! Nevermind the fact that my model fails to represent reality in all but the most constructed tests, that’s not important.

        • KobaCumTribute [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nevermind the fact that my model fails to represent reality in all but the most constructed tests

          Jokes on you, the orthodox capitalist model also fails at its own most specifically crafted to be ideal conditions experiments, leading to its “researchers” literally going “ah well, nevertheless it’s still intuitively correct” and learning nothing.

      • star_wraith [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s the extreme rigour with which they perceive themselves

        To get into any econ PhD program essentially requires a math degree. Which is funny because afaik the only other programs that might require that much math are like, physics and math itself.

        They then proceed to develop all these intense models, which is what they say the math is needed for. And yeah, sure, the models themselves are complex. But they’re all bullshit. It’s like building some quantitively rigorous model that “proves” intelligent design or that climate change is a hoax. Just because you use a lot of high level math doesn’t mean you’re actually using that math in a correct or useful way.