Yes, exactly. I only commented because I wanted to let you know that there was at least one layperson who was interested in what you were saying, and would have actually enjoyed seeing the arguments play out - it’s a bit selfish but I feel like your frustration robbed me of an opportunity to learn something from you, lol. And if I were in your shoes I’d like someone to tell me that.

😄

We live in a representative democracy, so regardless of your opinion, the will of the people ultimately decides what the people want, not what you feel is validated. Keep that in mind, that's how a democratic system functions.

Yeah I don’t know how that is relevant to economic facts but 👍

Incredibly relevant.

Incredibly not. Economics is a positive science.

I see the relevance. Or at least I can make it relevant to the conversation we were having, not necessarily the economics one.

@blueorbit, you just advanced to level 3!

That’s fair. I really just wanted to clarify that megslide had attributed politics to something that shouldn’t be too politicized. And then it became a huge conversation over what debt monetization is. Essentially I was saying we have had open market operations for years and no one called it debt monetization. The only changes have been recent changes to the doctrine of moral hazard and the additional mandates. I think it’s a little loose to call it debt monetization even if the effect is congruent. But more importantly open market operations are not conservative or liberal.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand how the current political system works. Truth, or perceived truth, (it's science, after all) has no ultimate bearing on whether or not the system changes for the better, that is influenced by the public opinion or layman.

One of the most frustrating things to macroeconomist, (which I am not) is conflating the normative side of macroeconomics with the positive side. And it happens all the time.

(As a side note, I’d hope no one here seeks to avoid debate or arguments! I joined this server because I like the point-by-point approach taken on the live stream. After all “an argument is just a search for truth amongst friends.” -attributed to David Hume)

My statement was more to the effect that facts don’t care about feelings.

And people may not care about your facts.

I agree, which is why I stopped engaging with them 😂

Weird way at looking at things (do you just want an echo chamber?), but I digress.

Ironically, I probably agree with their sentiment but I am not going to use lazy terminology to explain things. The Balance article they pointed out is on a site that’s generally great for layman explanations of economics and finance but it’s not like having a paper in an journal.

If the echo chamber is “we need oxygen to breathe” yeah sure. But echo chambers are about opinions not facts. One of us knew what we were talking about and the other was regurgitating something someone else had told them. I am not elitist but again I think the whole thing is not worth this level of effort.

If you were a scientist then you'd understand that something being a fact is sort of faux pas. This is like saying a theory is truth, science has evolved out of such absolutes.

If he had argued that we have now entered an era where the debt will be monetized moving forward because of additional mandates and the removal of moral hazard I would have probably gave him a thumbs up

This is essentially what my observation was above, but I took an incredibly longer time to say it, lol.

I think this is what I get for talking about economics on a law discord lol

Some of us are lurking in that echo chamber 😉

Oh, we talk about politics all the time, usually in <#771201221145919499> though.

Doesn't Social Science deal with how and why People behave (Feelings)?

And so the problems begin. The whole point is that the positive science of economics is not political.

Sure does.

Since the election was decided, it's basically a general politics sounding board now in there.

Is there a part of macroeconomics that is political sure. Were we discussing that, no.

Economics is a Social Science?

What?

Econ is considered a social science. Like psychology.

Prosecutors after Guilianis emails the house of cards is in danger

Soft science. Like chiropractic...or voodoo.

Lol.

Yes. It is not a Pure, natural, or physical science.

Yup. Like game theory (economics) or pricing theory (microeconomics).

Whenever people say economics they usually mean macroeconomics. People use other branches of economics all of the time without thinking about it.

Some universities give two different types of economics degrees - one for Bachelors of Arts and one for Bachelors of Science. I’m not sure what the difference is, probably the amount of statistics/math courses?

A huge difference.

At my university you had to take extra math to get a BSc