A Better System of Economics in light of technology
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: A Better System of Economics in light of technology
#2yawn, another central planner who doesn't grasp basic economics and knows what everybody should be doing. saying that "short term thinking invalidates economics" is like saying that "low gravity invalidates physics" and claiming that we need "a new system of physics on the moon".
it's called a variable for a reason.
what annoys me most is that all of his ideas have been suggested and disproven before, but these kind of people never even do basic research on that, they just assume that their ideas are unique snowflakes that nobody else could ever come up with.
Re: A Better System of Economics in light of technology
#3yawn, another central planner who doesn't grasp basic economics and knows what everybody should be doing. saying that "short term thinking invalidates economics" is like saying that "low gravity invalidates physics" and claiming that we need "a new system of physics on the moon". it's called a variable for a reason. what annoys me most is that all of his ideas have been suggested and disproven before, but these kind…
Please back up what you say with evidence. I happen to have several close friends with PhDs in economics who support this system.
Re: A Better System of Economics in light of technology
#4yawn, another central planner who doesn't grasp basic economics and knows what everybody should be doing. saying that "short term thinking invalidates economics" is like saying that "low gravity invalidates physics" and claiming that we need "a new system of physics on the moon". it's called a variable for a reason. what annoys me most is that all of his ideas have been suggested and disproven before, but these kind…
Please back up what you say with evidence. I happen to have several close friends with PhDs in economics who support this system.
Why would I back my claims up with evidence? Those guys should back their claim up, they're making it! I'm the guy who needs to be convinced here.