^^ this is the level of intelligence trying to type at me. I rest my case.
lol... Krugman makin em mad [video]
- Thread starter zerozero
- Start date
^^ this is the level of intelligence trying to type at me. I rest my case.
That's the best move for you b
"Why didn't Krugman win in '03?"
Next time shut the fukk up when you want to talk about serious academics b
This section is riddled with lazy pseudo intellectuals like you who want to talk mad shyt without being informed on anything
One post you imply that Nobels are usually awarded for recent work (completely wrong)
Next post you claim to know that the awards are given on political grounds - stfu b you already exposed yourself as knowing absolutely nothing the post before
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Economics is not a true science. Get over it.
It doesn't take away from academic achievements and the intelligence of the people doing it. Hell, I'd argue that we at least need something to analyze these types of data.
But to sit here and act like Economics is in any way, shape or form an objective science is absolutely retarded.
It doesn't take away from academic achievements and the intelligence of the people doing it. Hell, I'd argue that we at least need something to analyze these types of data.
But to sit here and act like Economics is in any way, shape or form an objective science is absolutely retarded.
Who are you even talking to here
Anyway, putting economics on the same level as sociology is so unbelievably incorrect since economics has contributed way more to society and is way more rigorous of a discipline and actually draws some extremely high level thinkers unlike the other social sciences
Picture a college valedictorian or a Putnam high scorer doing a PhD in Sociology or Poli Sci
OP said that Sociology > Economics which might explain his stupidity and his baseless criticism of Krugman
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Who are you even talking to here
Anyway, putting economics on the same level as sociology is so unbelievably incorrect since economics has contributed way more to society and is way more rigorous of a discipline and actually draws some extremely high level thinkers unlike the other social sciences
Picture a college valedictorian or a Putnam high scorer doing a PhD in Sociology or Poli Sci
OP said that Sociology > Economics which might explain his stupidity and his baseless criticism of Krugman
Imagine an Economist doing some real science, which relies on objective observation and not predicting or documenting the completely subject and ever changing dynamics of a thinking populace.
Economists are there to manipulate the data to form the best agenda that fits their political philosophy and narrative. Like I said, I agree with what I read from Krugman. Our views align on most issues. He's obsviously a very intelligent man and at the end of the day, he will have contributed more than I ever could.
Economic research is not about predicting the future, that's just what laypeople and journalists expect from economists
You ask for objectivity, but really how much of science is based on objective observation? Only the most deeply entrenched and longest standing areas of physics and chemistry really meet that standard
Everything else falls short of your standard but you're not in here knocking other fields