[QatzelOk]

Dude One: That's in fact exactly how it did work in the real world. We did it for like 40 years and it worked like a mug.

"Taxes will disincentivize job creators" is a lie that people trying to win at Economics will tell others.

Marketing (as an Economic activity) is sophisticated lying.

Because our commercial media is attached to profit (winning at Economics), most people are less informed than their great-grandparents were, when it comes to how the world functions.

Economics, beyond the mechanics of each particular system, is about grabbing as much for yourself through dishonest means. And one of the most important means of being dishonest is "baffling with bullshit" which is where people who have studied "Economics" confuse everyone into thinking that their particular eleborate Ponzi scheme is too complex for the average potential dupe to comprehend.

Selfishness and greed are too complex to be explained in simple language (people might actually understand and then hate those who compete at the shell game of Economics) so it's explained in an esoteric language that provides a comprehension WALL over which most dupes (victims of Economics) will never be able to climb.

Which shell is your money under again? You don't know, so I win! Again.

[SueDeNîmes]

The experimental set-up in the OP is a classic "prisoner's dilemma" from game theory, i.e. a situation in which completely rational individuals don't cooperate, even if it appears to be in their best interests to do so. It's used to model many real world situations involving cooperative behavior, including evolutionary theory to explain altruism. The idea isn't new and goes back at least to Rousseau's Parable of the Stag Hunt. The point is that rational calculation of individual advantage always leads to defection (non-cooperation) and, since all players defect, suboptimal aggregate payoffs.

The near universal human moral aversion to selfishness got our ancestors round that prisoner's dilemma (at least that's the theory, which seems reasonable). Learning what now passes for economics apparently gets students round that moral aversion.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That's in fact exactly how it did work in the real world. We did it for like 40 years and it worked like a mug.

Why does everyone insist on discussing my peripheral example instead of the main point that: "dismissing economic arguments as necessarily originating in anti-social persons" is inherently fallacious?

[Sivad]

:roll:

Why does everyone insist on discussing my peripheral example instead of the main point that: "dismissing economic arguments as necessarily originating in anti-social persons" is inherently fallacious?

It was a really bad example and it's a really bad argument I come across all the time. I'm sick of seeing that stupid argument, I can't encounter it and not debunk it.


And yeah it's stupid to dismiss economics as inherently anti-social but the fact is mainstream economics is just bullshit apologism for a bullshit system.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It was a really bad example and it's a really bad argument I come across all the time. I'm sick of seeing that stupid argument, I can't encounter it and not debunk it.

RESIST TEMPTATION!!!

And yeah it's stupid to dismiss economics as inherently anti-social

FINALLY!!! You are like the first one on here to agree with the obvious. Oh well.

[Beren]

And yeah it's stupid to dismiss economics as inherently anti-social but the fact is mainstream economics is just bullshit apologism for a bullshit system.

Well, if the economic system is based on the profit motive, then profit functions must exist too. However, I also believe economics is abused by many and many times.

[SueDeNîmes]

The OP experiment says nothing about the economic arguments, it shows that exposure to them tends to make people more anti-social.

[QatzelOk]

FINALLY!!! You are like the first one on here to agree with the obvious. Oh well.

The obvious is often your specialty, Vic.

"The red ball is obbbbbbb....viously under shell number two, right?
*uncovers empty shell"
Oh, no it's not! The house wins again!"

[Stardust]

This article is for all the posters who begrudge others on this forum for "not understanding Economics" enough. It suggests that posters who say "learn Economics" aren't looking for the enlightenment of others, but are simply looking to recruit more people into their anti-social worldview that they got by interacting with pro-selfishness propaganda.

soundtrack

(soundtrack comment: A sharp is the lowest form of individual . He has no respect for his family ,he has no respect for himself ,he blames everyone for his troubles ,he has never fit in, so he wants to lash out ,so they become sharps . Having no integrity they dont understand that there are people who care about a future for there families ,live a life free parasites who take and never give back !)

So, basically this article (hence, yourself) is suggesting not to bother about understanding the economics and the fundamental laws concerning economy; therefore let those in power to continue their ways -- i.e. exploitation, profit-makings, competitions and wars...
It doesn't sound like a valid argument to me.

[QatzelOk]

So, basically this article (hence, yourself) is suggesting not to bother about understanding the economics and the fundamental laws concerning economy; therefore let those in power to continue their ways -- i.e. exploitation, profit-makings, competitions and wars...
It doesn't sound like a valid argument to me.

I understand what you're saying here.

In fact, I have studied a few Economics courses, including one (at Science Po Paris) on Liberal Economics specifically. I got the highest grade in my class in that course, and one of my Peruvian classmates dropped out because the material made him extremely angry.

All this to say, there is more than one way to study "Economics."

I think the author is referring to the majority who study it to "make more money than other, normal people."
This way of studying Economics guarantees anti-social results.

But if you study Economics the way other people study infectious diseases and natural disasters.... you should be fine.

[Stardust]

I understand what you're saying here.

In fact, I have studied a few Economics courses, including one (at Science Po Paris) on Liberal Economics specifically. I got the highest grade in my class in that course, and one of my Peruvian classmates dropped out because the material made him extremely angry.

All this to say, there is more than one way to study "Economics."

I think the author is referring to the majority who study it to "make more money than other, normal people."
This way of studying Economics guarantees anti-social results.

But if you study Economics the way other people study infectious diseases and natural disasters.... you should be fine.

Okay thanks, got your point on that.
It would certainly lead to negative and anti-social results, if one study economics with that goal (making money and more profits). Although studying it with the aim to understand it better, and find out what's going on behind the curtains; is necessary, in fact very recommendable...

[Victoribus Spolia]

Okay thanks, got your point on that.It would certainly lead to negative and anti-social results, if one study economics with that goal (making money and more profits). Although studying it with the aim to understand it better, and find out what's going on behind the curtains; is necessary, in fact very recommendable...

This should be obvious, but it appears that @QatzelOk has confused the study of economics with being trained in business & finance.

Economics doesn't teach a person to make more money than others as a stated curriculum goal; though knowing economics could certainly help someone do that as well. Rather, economics teaches you the laws of economics and empirical data regarding the markets and how such operate in relation to other social factors.

Learning business & finance however, is to learn how to make money and to maximize profits as a curriculum goal. There may be overlap between the fields of study; however, economics is not attempting to teach people how to use their money per se; whereas finance is.

That one knowing how economics works implies that a person will also happen to be better at a rigged experiment where financially intelligent decisions are rewarded (namely, increasing profits and decreasing losses) is simply the benefit of such an education. The problem with this experiment is that it "predetermined" beforehad that the financially more intelligent decision was the anti-social or immoral one; and when educated people made intelligent decisions with their money, the experiment concluded that they were evil and anti-social.

Super stupid and fallacious (poisoning-the-well).

[ckaihatsu]

I'll just note that all of this goes to show that economics and politics are rarely one-or-the-other, but are usually a *mixture* of the two, in the real world.

An example would be Venezuela right now, where a casual observer of the news would probably think that the country somehow 'self-sabotaged' its own economy, producing the current hyperinflation, *especially* if they overlooked or intentionally ignored the *U.S. sanctions* recently leveled against the country, which was an imperialist *geopolitical* move (subsequently affecting the economy there).

[QatzelOk]

Economics doesn't teach a person to make more money than others as a stated curriculum goal; though knowing economics could certainly help someone do that as well.

Science

[Victoribus Spolia]

Science

Such a sophisticated response; whatever shall I do?!

[QatzelOk]

Such a sophisticated response; whatever shall I do?!

The consumerism of the preceding photo demonstrates what happens when science is at the mercy of undeveloped characters.

As soon as real science learns something, people of poor character (isolated greedbags who aren't socialized) will try to figure out a way to buy a Mazerati by marketing something. These people of poor character have been dominating Technological society (civilization) since the beginning, and they ensure that humankind will go extinct, unless they are eliminated from positions of power.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The consumerism of the preceding photo demonstrates what happens when science is at the mercy of undeveloped characters.

But that is not to say that science itself is the cause of the undeveloped character.

This is fundamentally different than the argument made in your OP; namely, that the study of economics is what makes you anti-social.

However, what you are arguing here, by analogy, would be that economics is "taken hostage" or "misused" by unseemly characters. That is a completely different claim altogether and one that I would not deny; however, that is arguably true about ANY and ALL fields of study. Bad men use morally neutral "things" (whether objects of use or conceptual constructs) for their own malicious purposes; however, it cannot be inferred from this fact that such objects or constructs are themselves bad, only that they are misused.

As soon as real science learns something, people of poor character (isolated greedbags who aren't socialized) will try to figure out a way to buy a Mazerati by marketing something. These people of poor character have been dominating Technological society (civilization) since the beginning, and they ensure that humankind will go extinct, unless they are eliminated from positions of power.

I must admit there is something ironic about the person claiming that other people who studied economics are the anti-social ones; especially when that same person is advocating for the elimination of whole groups of people based on their purchasing decisions and intelligence regarding the management of their own personal funds. Dare I say that such a suggestion sounds; anti-social?

Indeed, What seems more anti-social? making financially intelligent decisions and buying a nice car, or advocating for the extermination of an entire class of people because they have nice things and avoid poverty?

Perhaps anti-social isn't an apt-enough description; I think misanthropic is a far better term in this case.

[QatzelOk]

But that is not to say that science itself is the cause of the undeveloped character.

This is fundamentally different than the argument made in your OP; namely, that the study of economics is what makes you anti-social.

There's more than one argument to be made about the study of Economics in late capitalist societies.

Undeveloped characters are partially a result of technology. But that's not the same as science. Economics is more of a technology than an actual science because of its lack of real neutrality.

Economics is the study of "how the worst sublimated instincts of former hunters have become a form of nerdy cannibalism."

[Stardust]

This should be obvious, but it appears that @QatzelOk has confused the study of economics with being trained in business & finance.

Economics doesn't teach a person to make more money than others as a stated curriculum goal; though knowing economics could certainly help someone do that as well. Rather, economics teaches you the laws of economics and empirical data regarding the markets and how such operate in relation to other social factors.

Learning business & finance however, is to learn how to make money and to maximize profits as a curriculum goal. There may be overlap between the fields of study; however, economics is not attempting to teach people how to use their money per se; whereas finance is.

That one knowing how economics works implies that a person will also happen to be better at a rigged experiment where financially intelligent decisions are rewarded (namely, increasing profits and decreasing losses) is simply the benefit of such an education. The problem with this experiment is that it "predetermined" beforehad that the financially more intelligent decision was the anti-social or immoral one; and when educated people made intelligent decisions with their money, the experiment concluded that they were evil and anti-social.

Super stupid and fallacious (poisoning-the-well).

It would be stating the obvious to say that studying finance or business is generally meant for increasing one’s income, opening a new business or for those who seek better paid / more stable employment. Whilst Economics being a branch of social science; involves more intricacies; it teaches one about the laws of economy, and how its various elements interact within the society.
In the other words, the former is about 'how' to become financially more advanced, and the latter about learning 'what' laws and facts exists behind the existing economic phenomena. But knowing about the facts, could also benefit one financially; should the person have the advantage of materially necessary resources, and the intention to gain such.

However, it seems to me that the referred experiment shows at least one reality of our time; that most educational institutions, biased as they are under the ruling political economy, tend to bring out the worst in the students – instead of giving them insight and a sense of direction towards becoming more rational and socially minded individuals (as normal human beings); they teach them how to become competitive to the extent of pure selfishness, overshadowing their clear view of reality along the way.

In this example, the rational and socially desirable attitude would be to invest at least 80% in the public fund and up to 20% in the personal accounts. Because that would ensure greater return for many; whilst investing the same portions in the reverse fund / accounts would generate ‘less return’, as well as increasing the possibility of being caught!

[Victoribus Spolia]

Economics is the study of "how the worst sublimated instincts of former hunters have become a form of nerdy cannibalism."

Please elaborate on this more, I am curious if this is just a rhetorical vomit-session on your part or if you have some sort of substantive anthropological argument constructed to support such a novel definition.