General

Re: whhaaaat??

hayekianxyz — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:42:32 GMT

Economics has got to the point where you can read a whole book (actually, nobody writes books) without any mention of the real world, all in the name of "science".

Actually, that's why I really like Galbraith, despite all of his Keynesian shortcomings. The funny thing I believe Rothbard's minor was statistics or something, and as indicated by a topic on these forums not long ago there are a lot of math majors here.

Re: whhaaaat??

yessir — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:06:28 GMT

Sphairon:

P$ = (Kµ * T*) / (A§)²   with {"no influence"} == (1/∞)

Vx = (A§)³ / (T* * Kµ)   with {"no time spent"} == (1/∞)

Does P$ equal Vx?
=> (Kµ * T*) / (A§)² ≠ (A§)³ / (T* * Kµ)   v 0 ≠ A

In other words, frequency of publication does not equal validity and Austrian economics is not useless (≠ 0). Thank you.

While you did that I just minimized discrimination by solving for the derivative of discrimination set to 0.

Re: whhaaaat??

Sphairon — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:51:20 GMT

Sad thing is, people who rightly question the validity of this ivory tower arithmetic are often denounced as not capable of understanding the math. That way, professors can hide behind incomprehensible systems of equations to avoid a rethinking of their premises.

Here, I also have some mathematical observations for y'all:

T* = time spent pursuing mainstream economics degrees at an Ivy League University
Kµ = amount of Keynesian thought in one's premises
A§ = influence of Austrian economics
P$ = frequency of publication in accredited journals
Vx = amount of validity of one's claims

P$ = (Kµ * T*) / (A§)²   with {"no influence"} == (1/∞)

Vx = (A§)³ / (T* * Kµ)   with {"no time spent"} == (1/∞)

Does P$ equal Vx?
=> (Kµ * T*) / (A§)² ≠ (A§)³ / (T* * Kµ)   v 0 ≠ A

In other words, frequency of publication does not equal validity and Austrian economics is not useless (≠ 0). Thank you.

Re: whhaaaat??

Conza88 — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:25:59 GMT

Re: whhaaaat??

fakename — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:28:46 GMT

yessir:
Who started this madness...

walras-->marshall-->paul samuelson-->george stigler Therefore: walras started this madness.

whhaaaat??

yessir — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:55:16 GMT

I have been reading up on people's critiques of using math in social sciences. I study business in university so my econ is limited to intro micro /macro. But man i had no clue how mathematical mainstream economics is. I am browsing thru some MIT lecture notes, I find one called Racial Discrimination. So i look expecting some possible impact of discrimination, maybe the effects of certain policies on discrimination etc but I basically find equations with words used for definitions.

Quotes:

Let the wage Y be the wage equal to

Yi = XiB + alphaZi + ei --> Discrimination is the case where alpha is < 0 ....are you serious???

More formally, think of our basic comparison of hiring odds of black and white-sounding resumes:

T = E[Y1|N = 1]-E[Y...bla bla and it goes on for the rest of the width of the page.....

Who started this madness...