I am curious if you have ever studied economics, or just parroting what your social circle repeats. There is a very good reason you don’t discuss politics, economics, abortion and religion in polite company - people can’t remove what they were raised with and emotive response from logic. Economics isn’t just money either, it’s just the easiest way to introduce it to students - Economics is about efficient allocation of resources.
You are correct, economics isn’t a science anymore than finance or psychology. But there are well established theories, laws and cause/effect relationships that can be relied on and its an entire model where changing one has flow on effects to soo much else we can’t pin it down exactly.
Screw wall street investors, but keeping financial markets alive and reliable is a key pillar of our society - as an example how many of those students who had loans would never go to uni if they couldn’t access credit? How many would never buy a house, or become homeless if they lost their job?
To go into deeper theory, look into your basic and complex multiplier and how they work in a recession. Forgiving a student loan doesn’t increase consumption, just reallocate it. It looks bullshit because the rich get a payout and the middle class suffer, but there is reason and theory behind it.
Paragraph 1: argument from authority and questioning my competency.
Paragraph 2: conceding part of the argument to reframe it
Paragraph 3: an appeal to emotion and rewriting history
Paragraph 4: attempt to distract with jargon
Yeah I am not buying what you are selling. Economists consistently support the views of the people who are paying them, consistently make predictions that do not happen, and consistently ignore real world data that goes against what they laughably call theories.
All attempts to reframe, reorient, distract, gatekeep, and every sorta rhetoric tricks will not remove the facts that I have stated. But hey go ahead and prove me wrong, go find me someone employed at Goldman Sachs with an econ degree who for years has stated that the bailouts were a bad idea. Go ahead and find me a government economist who supports student loan amnesty. I will lend you my lantern to find the one honest economists.
We made god in our image, the economist god is homo economis. A being whose integrity is bought for pennies. That says all you really need to know.
Paragraph 1: argument from authority and questioning my competency.
no, asking if you have a basic knowledge of what you are arguing and what we can actually discuss. Appears not.
Paragraph 2: conceding part of the argument to reframe it
finding common ground to discuss a way forward and being aware of limitations.
Paragraph 3: an appeal to emotion and rewriting history
logical explanation of what was done and why, using known theory. See point 1
Paragraph 4: attempt to distract with jargon
this is first three weeks of first year economics. See point 1.
Yeah I am not buying what you are selling. Economists consistently support the views of the people who are paying them, consistently make predictions that do not happen, and consistently ignore real world data that goes against what they laughably call theories.
you have literally seen the change in inflation rates being implemented in order to starve of recession and keep people employed. First 3 weeks of economics.
All attempts to reframe, reorient, distract, gatekeep, and every sorta rhetoric tricks will not remove the facts that I have stated. But hey go ahead and prove me wrong, go find me someone employed at Goldman Sachs with an econ degree who for years has stated that the bailouts were a bad idea. Go ahead and find me a government economist who supports student loan amnesty. I will lend you my lantern to find the one honest economists.
you’ve discussed multiple inconsistencies and distractions in mine, yet through out your have thrown out personal beliefs and unrealistic possibilities with no evidence behind you.
We made god in our image, the economist god is homo economis. A being whose integrity is bought for pennies. That says all you really need to know.
see point above. For the record, im not a paid economists so throw what I’m paid to do out of the equation.
I am curious if you have ever studied economics, or just parroting what your social circle repeats. There is a very good reason you don’t discuss politics, economics, abortion and religion in polite company - people can’t remove what they were raised with and emotive response from logic. Economics isn’t just money either, it’s just the easiest way to introduce it to students - Economics is about efficient allocation of resources.
You are correct, economics isn’t a science anymore than finance or psychology. But there are well established theories, laws and cause/effect relationships that can be relied on and its an entire model where changing one has flow on effects to soo much else we can’t pin it down exactly.
Screw wall street investors, but keeping financial markets alive and reliable is a key pillar of our society - as an example how many of those students who had loans would never go to uni if they couldn’t access credit? How many would never buy a house, or become homeless if they lost their job?
To go into deeper theory, look into your basic and complex multiplier and how they work in a recession. Forgiving a student loan doesn’t increase consumption, just reallocate it. It looks bullshit because the rich get a payout and the middle class suffer, but there is reason and theory behind it.
Paragraph 1: argument from authority and questioning my competency.
Paragraph 2: conceding part of the argument to reframe it
Paragraph 3: an appeal to emotion and rewriting history
Paragraph 4: attempt to distract with jargon
Yeah I am not buying what you are selling. Economists consistently support the views of the people who are paying them, consistently make predictions that do not happen, and consistently ignore real world data that goes against what they laughably call theories.
All attempts to reframe, reorient, distract, gatekeep, and every sorta rhetoric tricks will not remove the facts that I have stated. But hey go ahead and prove me wrong, go find me someone employed at Goldman Sachs with an econ degree who for years has stated that the bailouts were a bad idea. Go ahead and find me a government economist who supports student loan amnesty. I will lend you my lantern to find the one honest economists.
We made god in our image, the economist god is homo economis. A being whose integrity is bought for pennies. That says all you really need to know.
Paragraph 1: argument from authority and questioning my competency.
Paragraph 2: conceding part of the argument to reframe it
Paragraph 3: an appeal to emotion and rewriting history
Paragraph 4: attempt to distract with jargon
Yeah I am not buying what you are selling. Economists consistently support the views of the people who are paying them, consistently make predictions that do not happen, and consistently ignore real world data that goes against what they laughably call theories.
All attempts to reframe, reorient, distract, gatekeep, and every sorta rhetoric tricks will not remove the facts that I have stated. But hey go ahead and prove me wrong, go find me someone employed at Goldman Sachs with an econ degree who for years has stated that the bailouts were a bad idea. Go ahead and find me a government economist who supports student loan amnesty. I will lend you my lantern to find the one honest economists.
We made god in our image, the economist god is homo economis. A being whose integrity is bought for pennies. That says all you really need to know.