Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   Coddled university snowflakes begin rejecting textbook methodology that all too often reduces economics to a set of mathematical exercises that enable them to do what economists do, and stuff   (newyorker.com) divider line 101
    More: Dumbass, Thomas Piketty, asset pricing  
•       •       •

2017 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 May 2014 at 11:35 AM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-14 11:20:48 AM  
You most certainly were not told there would be no math. It's like blaming gun manufacturers for mass murders. Emotionally correct but technically retarded.
 
2014-05-14 11:31:59 AM  
So basically they want economics to be more like a Kansas biology class?
 
2014-05-14 11:51:24 AM  
Why am I surprised that someone saying this also mentions Thomas Piketty?

"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences."

and Piketty would say that because the data on how well his flavour of economics worked out (big state socialism) is that it was pretty abysmal.

Many of these groups that want a "new" type of economics are people who just don't like the fact that most economics realised that almost no economists think that Marxism works.
 
2014-05-14 12:02:10 PM  
Whoa, wait, they're actually expected to quantify things to demonstrate that their ideas and methodologies align with reality? That sounds hard. Let's stick with fuzzy ideas that sound nice when being explained at cocktail parties.
 
2014-05-14 12:03:44 PM  

error 303: Whoa, wait, they're actually expected to quantify things to demonstrate that their ideas and methodologies align with reality? That sounds hard. Let's stick with fuzzy ideas that sound nice when being explained at cocktail parties.


No wonder journalists love covering this group, then.
 
2014-05-14 12:04:13 PM  
A lot of economics has been in turmoil for decades, with some economists coming up with beautiful equations that have little to no use in practice, and disagreements on how basic definitions work. So the "dissident students" have a point. But by definition, since they're students, they know nothing (yet), so for the "movement" to make sense there should really be some contribution from professors who have more perspective on the state of their discipline.
 
2014-05-14 12:06:35 PM  
 
2014-05-14 12:07:26 PM  

farkeruk: Why am I surprised that someone saying this also mentions Thomas Piketty?

"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences."

and Piketty would say that because the data on how well his flavour of economics worked out (big state socialism) is that it was pretty abysmal.

Many of these groups that want a "new" type of economics are people who just don't like the fact that most economics realised that almost no economists think that Marxism works.


And Marxism was a response to the failures of unchecked Capitalism during the Gilded Age/Victorian Era. Pure Capitalism eventually turns into a corporate-ruled dystopia where the 1% have all the wealth and power, which is just as bad as the Communist dystopia where the 1% who control the Party have all the wealth and power. History has shown that the only thing that works is a hybrid system where business and government enact checks and balances on each other. Where things are breaking down is where the government is now in the pocket of business, so it is not able to act to balance out the worst excesses of the Capitalist system (just look at the FCC for evidence of how things are breaking down).

We don't want a Communist system, we just want to return things back to the healthy balance of power that Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt were behind during their era of reform. Things have backslid a lot from the Progressive era.
 
2014-05-14 12:11:02 PM  
And speaking of math:

archive.wired.com
Here's what killed your 401(k)   David X. Li's Gaussian copula function as first published in 2000. Investors exploited it as a quick-and fatally flawed-way to assess risk. A shorter version appears on this month's cover of Wired.

Probability
Specifically, this is a joint default probability-the likelihood that any two members of the pool (A and B) will both default. It's what investors are looking for, and the rest of the formula provides the answer.

Survival times
The amount of time between now and when A and B can be expected to default. Li took the idea from a concept in actuarial science that charts what happens to someone's life expectancy when their spouse dies.

Equality
A dangerously precise concept, since it leaves no room for error. Clean equations help both quants and their managers forget that the real world contains a surprising amount of uncertainty, fuzziness, and precariousness.

Copula
This couples (hence the Latinate term copula) the individual probabilities associated with A and B to come up with a single number. Errors here massively increase the risk of the whole equation blowing up.

Distribution functions
The probabilities of how long A and B are likely to survive. Since these are not certainties, they can be dangerous: Small miscalculations may leave you facing much more risk than the formula indicates.

Gamma
The all-powerful correlation parameter, which reduces correlation to a single constant-something that should be highly improbable, if not impossible. This is the magic number that made Li's copula function irresistible.
 
2014-05-14 12:14:11 PM  
Article: a bunch of students are saying that economics doesn't exist in a vacuum and should also look to other sciences rather than spouting theoretical mathematical equations as if humans are just giant calculators.

Subby: HURR DURR STOODENTS IS STOOPID SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Why do I think the dumbass tag isn't about the submitted article?
 
2014-05-14 12:15:06 PM  

error 303: Whoa, wait, they're actually expected to quantify things to demonstrate that their ideas and methodologies align with reality? That sounds hard. Let's stick with fuzzy ideas that sound nice when being explained at cocktail parties.


Try reading the article. Or does that sound hard.
 
2014-05-14 12:18:23 PM  
It's a good thing that, as an engineering major, I was able to take all of the math that I learned and learn your entire economics major in a couple of months by reading a few books.

Most economics follows the same mathematical principles as the rest of the universe.  It doesn't get complicated until it gets down to a very micro scale, in which case it crosses into psychology.  And psychology, the major that so many people dismiss as an easy subject, quickly becomes the most complex of any subject out there.  We know more about a black hole billions of light years away from earth than we do about how a molecules and electrons work in our brain to allow me to type this paragraph.
 
2014-05-14 12:21:06 PM  
A number of scholarly disciplines have gone through some sort of social turn in the past few decades, as people in the field start to figure out how unavoidably connected their work is to the systems of human activity around them.  If it's finally happening with economics, good for them. It will be interesting to watch.
 
2014-05-14 12:24:00 PM  

farkeruk: Why am I surprised that someone saying this also mentions Thomas Piketty?

"To put it bluntly, the discipline of economics has to get over its childish passion for mathematics and for purely theoretical and often highly ideological speculation, at the expense of historical research and collaboration with the other social sciences."

and Piketty would say that because the data on how well his flavour of economics worked out (big state socialism) is that it was pretty abysmal.

Many of these groups that want a "new" type of economics are people who just don't like the fact that most economics realised that almost no economists think that Marxism works.


Economists know trickle down doesn't work either.  Keynes all the way man.
 
2014-05-14 12:28:09 PM  

Mad_Radhu: And Marxism was a response to the failures of unchecked Capitalism during the Gilded Age/Victorian Era. Pure Capitalism eventually turns into a corporate-ruled dystopia where the 1% have all the wealth and power, which is just as bad as the Communist dystopia where the 1% who control the Party have all the wealth and power. History has shown that the only thing that works is a hybrid system where business and government enact checks and balances on each other. Where things are breaking down is where the government is now in the pocket of business, so it is not able to act to balance out the worst excesses of the Capitalist system (just look at the FCC for evidence of how things are breaking down).

We don't want a Communist system, we just want to return things back to the healthy balance of power that Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt were behind during their era of reform. Things have backslid a lot from the Progressive era.


Progressives? I hate that word. Use one that describes his position, not one that defines whether you think he is right or not.
 
2014-05-14 12:29:20 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Someone should get them this book as well:
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned /d p/1848139926/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0ZPB5PH4N3BMYP2K8QZ7
[img.fark.net image 225x346]


Maybe they shouldn't.
 
2014-05-14 12:30:29 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-14 12:31:28 PM  
Less math, more austrian.  Gotit
 
2014-05-14 12:35:35 PM  

Muta: Economists know trickle down doesn't work either.  Keynes all the way man.


Trickle down doesn't work? Really? Rich people don't go spending their money on stuff that goes to poorer people?

And apart from the fact that no-one has really ever done Keynes properly, the idea behind Keynes is that you spend money just to create demand, which is frankly stupid and leads to things like massive, expensive, wasteful government projects.
 
2014-05-14 12:41:35 PM  

farkeruk: Progressives? I hate that word. Use one that describes his position, not one that defines whether you think he is right or not.



notsureiftrolling.gif

Teddy founded the Progressive Party in 1912, and was it's candidate for president.

Are you Jonah Goldberg, famous for claiming that Mussolini, inventor of the word that described his own policies, was not actually a fascist?
 
2014-05-14 12:49:32 PM  

farkeruk: And apart from the fact that no-one has really ever done Keynes properly, the idea behind Keynes is that you spend money just to create demand, which is frankly stupid and leads to things like massive, expensive, wasteful government projects.

 
So the fact that even when Keynesianism was done half-assedly it pulled the country out of Depression and reverting to traditional economic thinking only reversed the progress (i.e. the mistake of 38) tells you nothing?
 
2014-05-14 12:52:21 PM  

farkeruk: Muta: Economists know trickle down doesn't work either.  Keynes all the way man.

Trickle down doesn't work? Really? Rich people don't go spending their money on stuff that goes to poorer people?

And apart from the fact that no-one has really ever done Keynes properly, the idea behind Keynes is that you spend money just to create demand, which is frankly stupid and leads to things like massive, expensive, wasteful government projects.


No, they don't. They sit on it, or they play financial shell games with it among other rich people. No matter how gluttonous they are, a rich person can only consume so much.

What I really want to know is who is Eruk, and why do you want to fark him so badly?
 
2014-05-14 12:56:15 PM  
Right or wrong, Subby missed a crucial part of TFA.

Echoing complaints that have been mounting in the economics world for at least twenty years
 
2014-05-14 01:00:56 PM  

farkeruk: Muta: Economists know trickle down doesn't work either.  Keynes all the way man.

Trickle down doesn't work? Really? Rich people don't go spending their money on stuff that goes to poorer people?



Give one person in the upper tax bracket $1,000,000 in a tax break. They might go and buy a TV that costs $10,000. Maybe a few other highly expensive things, like a $250,000 car. Most of the money will be put into savings or investments, what he or she spends is on a few luxury items.

Now, translate that $1,000,000 into $10,000 tax breaks for 100 people. They will still put some into savings, but the amount of good they buy would be less expensive, but in greater quantity. Which stimulates the economy and creates more jobs: 1 person buying 1 expensive TV or 100 people buying 100 less expensive TV's? One person buying an extremely expensive car or 100 people putting down payments on 100 new cars?

Not a perfect example, but it's the reason why trickle-down doesn't work: there's not enough population at the top buying enough of all goods to create sufficient demand to expand business.
 
2014-05-14 01:02:41 PM  

pueblonative: So the fact that even when Keynesianism was done half-assedly it pulled the country out of Depression and reverting to traditional economic thinking only reversed the progress (i.e. the mistake of 38) tells you nothing?

 What "mistake of 38"? The US economy grew in 1938 after a year or so of recession.
 
2014-05-14 01:02:46 PM  

farkeruk: Trickle down doesn't work? Really? Rich people don't go spending their money on stuff that goes to poorer people?



It only works if their is sufficient investment activity by capital.
If they just sit on their cash, you get stagnation.
Private business investment has been on a general downward trend since 1980. It plummets in each recession as firms hoard cash in fear, and doesn't recover by the time the next recession occurs.
 
2014-05-14 01:03:59 PM  
University pseudo science academics out of touch with reality and so enamored of their theories that they won't acknowledge the possibility that they are mistaken?  Well clutch my pearls and shout "that's unpossible!"

Economics = cultural anthropology with calculus.  But still more intellectually rigorous than the Education Departments.

/History and international relations major.  Why yes, I do respect engineers more than my peers.
 
2014-05-14 01:06:29 PM  

farkeruk: What "mistake of 38"? The US economy grew in 1938 after a year or so of recession.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%9338

static.seekingalpha.com
 
2014-05-14 01:17:30 PM  
As far as I can tell, a lot of modern-day economics requires assumptions about human nature that are so divorced from reality as to be nigh-useless.

And say this as a PHYSICIST. You know, the whole "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density on a frictionless plane in a vacuum" (And yes. Yes, we totally make assumptions that absurd) thing? Frictionless, massless pulleys?

THat's *LESS* absurd than this shiat.

In undergrad asked an economics professor (during the econ class I had to take) "Wait, what would happen if an outside company with a large cash reserve entered a market, then purposefully sold their goods at cost or below cost, until they'd driven their competitors under, then raised their prices now that there was no one to challenge them?"

The reply I got was "That would never happen, because Game Theory."
 
2014-05-14 01:17:45 PM  

Arkanaut: But by definition, since they're students, they know nothing (yet), so for the "movement" to make sense there should really be some contribution from professors who have more perspective on the state of their discipline.


That would only work if it was their first year of education.  Pretty much by definition, and certainly by requirements, an undergrad already has a substantial understanding of many topics in the field.

Having professors contribute their piece in it is good, but students can certainly state an opinion on whether they think they're getting a good education.

Still, FTA: "a variety of theoretical perspectives, from the commonly taught neoclassically-based approaches to the largely excluded classical, post-Keynesian, institutional, ecological, feminist, Marxist and Austrian traditions-among others."

Feminist and Marxist raise 'wtf' flags for me.  Post-Keynesian is my primary economic model for policy guidance*.  Classical is a bit like studying Freud in pyschology, you don't need to go in depth but it's good history.  I assume 'institutional' is focused on large organizations, often international.  Ecological is looking towards how to do an economy on a 'green' basis, IE non-polluting and renewable.  Austrian is a known school that advocates some different stuff than Keynesian, but it's a bit like two political parties; both have their upsides and downsides but it can be hard to tell which is 'better'.  Marxist is the economic model equivalent of creationists and flat-earthers.  Feminist strikes me as probably being less economic model and more political agenda.

farkeruk: And apart from the fact that no-one has really ever done Keynes properly, the idea behind Keynes is that you spend money just to create demand, which is frankly stupid and leads to things like massive, expensive, wasteful government projects.


Thus the reason for 'post-keynesian' modifications.  Personally, I advocate for always spending money in as productive fashion as possible.  You just have to spend it.  There's always plenty of productive work to be done.  Fix our roads to save W&T on cars.  Fix our bridges so they don't collapse and cause even more damage.  Force a rollout of fiber 'to the door', creating a world-class internet system.  Fix broken down schools, build new ones so class sizes don't have to be large, children not packed in too tightly.  Etc...

*Not an economist, but setting up government to act as a counterbalance to the economy makes sense.
 
2014-05-14 01:22:31 PM  

farkeruk: Muta: Economists know trickle down doesn't work either.  Keynes all the way man.

Trickle down doesn't work? Really? Rich people don't go spending their money on stuff that goes to poorer people?

And apart from the fact that no-one has really ever done Keynes properly, the idea behind Keynes is that you spend money just to create demand, which is frankly stupid and leads to things like massive, expensive, wasteful government projects.


Bwhahahahahahahahah. So, what prey tell do you call the economic policies of the Bush and Obama administration from 2008-2010? Sure looks like a whole lot of Keynes to me. In fact 2008 proves that rich or poor Republican or Democrat at heart we are all Keynesians.

The only problem we have with Keynes is that we forget the second part and that is you pay the farking debt off when the economy is good. We never should have reduced taxes in 2003, and in fact should have raised taxe starting in 1997ish in order to eliminate the deficit and pay the debt.

What really amazes me is that most people don't realize the Tea Party austerity is actually working. The deficit is being reduced at an unprecedented rate and the economy is slowly adjusting to the new level of spending. It does suck for the individual, but that kind of Macro Economic manipulation of reducing debt, eliminating government spending, and curbing social welfare programs will always suck for the individual.
 
2014-05-14 01:22:58 PM  

farkeruk: Mad_Radhu: And Marxism was a response to the failures of unchecked Capitalism during the Gilded Age/Victorian Era. Pure Capitalism eventually turns into a corporate-ruled dystopia where the 1% have all the wealth and power, which is just as bad as the Communist dystopia where the 1% who control the Party have all the wealth and power. History has shown that the only thing that works is a hybrid system where business and government enact checks and balances on each other. Where things are breaking down is where the government is now in the pocket of business, so it is not able to act to balance out the worst excesses of the Capitalist system (just look at the FCC for evidence of how things are breaking down).

We don't want a Communist system, we just want to return things back to the healthy balance of power that Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt were behind during their era of reform. Things have backslid a lot from the Progressive era.

Progressives? I hate that word. Use one that describes his position, not one that defines whether you think he is right or not.


Progressive was the name of the political party he started. Read a farking book.
 
2014-05-14 01:29:36 PM  

Felgraf: As far as I can tell, a lot of modern-day economics requires assumptions about human nature that are so divorced from reality as to be nigh-useless.

And say this as a PHYSICIST. You know, the whole "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density on a frictionless plane in a vacuum" (And yes. Yes, we totally make assumptions that absurd) thing? Frictionless, massless pulleys?

THat's *LESS* absurd than this shiat.

In undergrad asked an economics professor (during the econ class I had to take) "Wait, what would happen if an outside company with a large cash reserve entered a market, then purposefully sold their goods at cost or below cost, until they'd driven their competitors under, then raised their prices now that there was no one to challenge them?"

The reply I got was "That would never happen, because Game Theory."


See, you have to keep in mind that corporations are run by literal angels.
 
2014-05-14 01:30:04 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: The only problem we have with Keynes is that we forget the second part and that is you pay the farking debt off when the economy is good. We never should have reduced taxes in 2003, and in fact should have raised taxe starting in 1997ish in order to eliminate the deficit and pay the debt.


Bingo.  I can't remember the name for it, but there does exist an 'economic school' that gets rid of Keyne's 'PAY BACK THE DEBT ALREADY!!!' part.

A good chunk of the problem is properly recognizing when we ARE in a 'good time' and need to raise taxes, because things can always be better.
 
2014-05-14 01:31:59 PM  
They have a point.

Too often it works like this:  Some grad student somewhere has an idea for a brilliant model and goes looking for data to populate it.  So, he/she tries to come up with a question that can be answered by the brilliant, technically demanding model they designed.  

The intellectual exercise for them was creating the model.  Everything else is secondary (or worse, annoying "liberal arts fluff" to them).  So now we have a new brilliant model that was created to answer a question, but relatively little thought went into the question.  They will tweak the question after the fact to make sure the model can answer it....not the other way around.
 
2014-05-14 01:32:24 PM  

pueblonative: Why do I think the dumbass tag isn't about the submitted article?


For the same reason I think you don't know anything about economics.
 
2014-05-14 01:34:59 PM  
Just once, can we (meaning the United States population) that doesn't confuse systems of government with economic theories, and vice versa? kthanks.
 
2014-05-14 01:36:03 PM  

IvyLady: Just once, can we (meaning the United States population) that doesn't confuse systems of government with economic theories, and vice versa? kthanks.


Wow.  Any bite that comment would have had was destroyed by the epic typo.  Meant to say thsi:

Just once, can we (meaning the United States population) have a conversation on this topic that doesn't confuse systems of government with economic theories, and vice versa? kthanks.
 
2014-05-14 01:36:49 PM  
Is supply and demand still a thing?
 
2014-05-14 01:40:50 PM  

Felgraf: As far as I can tell, a lot of modern-day economics requires assumptions about human nature that are so divorced from reality as to be nigh-useless.

And say this as a PHYSICIST. You know, the whole "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density on a frictionless plane in a vacuum" (And yes. Yes, we totally make assumptions that absurd) thing? Frictionless, massless pulleys?

THat's *LESS* absurd than this shiat.

In undergrad asked an economics professor (during the econ class I had to take) "Wait, what would happen if an outside company with a large cash reserve entered a market, then purposefully sold their goods at cost or below cost, until they'd driven their competitors under, then raised their prices now that there was no one to challenge them?"

The reply I got was "That would never happen, because Game Theory."


No farking way!!!???  I lol'd.  A tenured prof said that?
 
2014-05-14 01:44:59 PM  
I'm an engineer, too, but to my mind this

plcow: Most economics follows the same mathematical principles as the rest of the universe


...sure sounds like an article of faith.

Also, this

farkeruk: and Piketty would say that because the data on how well his flavour of economics worked out (big state socialism)


... is name-calling.
 
2014-05-14 01:45:14 PM  

Firethorn: Austrian is a known school that advocates some different stuff than Keynesian, but it's a bit like two political parties; both have their upsides and downsides but it can be hard to tell which is 'better'.


Does the "Austrian school" make any empirical claims? Seems to me that's the kind of stuff that the students are protesting against, lots of ink wasted on theory with little to no practical application. No successful application, anyway.
 
2014-05-14 01:53:29 PM  
I dropped out of my economics major because I disagreed with the emphasis on math, but that's more because I'm lazy rather than a stand on principles.
 
2014-05-14 01:55:52 PM  

Felgraf: As far as I can tell, a lot of modern-day economics requires assumptions about human nature that are so divorced from reality as to be nigh-useless.

And say this as a PHYSICIST. You know, the whole "Assume a spherical cow of uniform density on a frictionless plane in a vacuum" (And yes. Yes, we totally make assumptions that absurd) thing? Frictionless, massless pulleys?

THat's *LESS* absurd than this shiat.

In undergrad asked an economics professor (during the econ class I had to take) "Wait, what would happen if an outside company with a large cash reserve entered a market, then purposefully sold their goods at cost or below cost, until they'd driven their competitors under, then raised their prices now that there was no one to challenge them?"

The reply I got was "That would never happen, because Game Theory."


It happens occasionally, and it's called predatory pricing (or "dumping" if you're talking international trade). Think Wal-Mart or China.

Your professor sounds like a Republican. They have a habit of denying the existence of things that might call for government regulation.
 
2014-05-14 02:07:38 PM  
Economics, as a science/profession, is bullshiat.  This is all you need to know about economics in under 150 words.  No equations, no math, just simply isn't necessary.  Economics suffers from physics envy.

An actor needs to produce goods or obtain goods from other that have produced (wealth redistribution via taxes), and use those goods to trade with other actors that have done the same.  Market forces dictate the value of goods produced, and money is used as a conduit to make these transactions easier.  If an actor trades for goods using borrowed or printed money, but has not produced goods or obtained goods from others, they will be forced to either produce those an equivalent value of goods in the future or obtain an equivalent value of goods from another person.  If they cannot, the economy will suffer based on the value of goods consumed with the borrowed/printed money.
 
2014-05-14 02:11:00 PM  

MattStafford: Economics, as a science/profession, is bullshiat.  This is all you need to know about economics in under 150 words.  No equations, no math, just simply isn't necessary.  Economics suffers from physics envy.

An actor needs to produce goods or obtain goods from other that have produced (wealth redistribution via taxes), and use those goods to trade with other actors that have done the same.  Market forces dictate the value of goods produced, and money is used as a conduit to make these transactions easier.  If an actor trades for goods using borrowed or printed money, but has not produced goods or obtained goods from others, they will be forced to either produce those an equivalent value of goods in the future or obtain an equivalent value of goods from another person.  If they cannot, the economy will suffer based on the value of goods consumed with the borrowed/printed money.


Wait, aren't you the coconuts guy?
 
2014-05-14 02:12:35 PM  
For graduate level economics, fine.  economics does have a massive sociological component to it that should be explored.

For undergrad?  No.  Undergrad economics is all (easy) math, and it should stay that way.  You should understand the nuts and bolts of economics first.

That's fine if you want to eventually color outside the lines, but you should at least know where the lines are and why they are there.
 
2014-05-14 02:14:20 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Wait, aren't you the coconuts guy?


No, I'm the professional quarterback guy.  Duh.
 
2014-05-14 02:18:26 PM  

bighairyguy: Is supply and demand still a thing?

I can't recall if they were tenured-it was years ago, and I will admit at that point I sort of went "Right. I'm going to stop paying attention now to keep from shouting in frustration. =I."
To be fair, it WAS just an intro-level econ class (macro or micro, can't remember which), so it may be my question was simply outside the scope of the course (and, I suppose, according to game theory, my situation IS technically unstable-if we assume no barriers to market entry. Which isn't at all realistic.)
But yeah that was when I went "Oh. A lot of these people are crazy. OK, that helps explain a lot."
 
2014-05-14 02:19:45 PM  

Firethorn: Marxist is the economic model equivalent of creationists and flat-earthers.


Marxism isn't really an economic model.  More of a set of theories on what drives economies, and a shifting of the definition of value.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report