Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

You're still saying that anyone "who knows the theory" and still disagrees with its assured application to minimum wage is foolish or disingenuous.

Yep. If the theory on this is wrong, the stock market crashes in five, four, three, two, one...

So you just assert that you can do it, then?

Interesting. I'm not the biggest fan of econometrics. Its tools are IMO weaker than econometricians believe and sometimes misleading to the public.

How do you reconcile this idea with the description of economic systems as complex feedback loops?

I don't understand the question.

This is a false equivalence and exactly my point about how you have a different standard for what counts as proof when it comes to various things you believe. Or at least the reasons you believe in gravity are at a far lower bar than a physicist's.
You know what, no they're not.
You've never once in your life ever observed anything which acted in violation of gravity. You'd know something was up in a second if you saw some hoax video which claimed to have anti-gravity because that's contrary to your every experience. You simply can't say the same for your economic ideas. Or if you can... you have yet to do so in a way that I agree with what you purport to have observed.

If I have observed the law of demand not holding up, then the food industry fails in five, four, three, two, one...

I don't believe for a second that econometric conclusions are anywhere near as thoroughly tested as General Relativity. Can you make predictions which are accurate to 30+ decimal places?

The difference isn't trivial. Show me an economic principle which I can't shoot holes in immediately by just examining various human cultures and economies at various scales w/o ignoring the nuance and complexity of individuals.

Your overstatement of your ideas and lack of seeming understanding of when and how far you're extrapolating does your credibility no favors.

I think there is a misunderstanding on the things I'm saying. I'm not a big fan of econometrics. However my opinion on it is forming as I learn more about it.

I do not know much about how the law of demand and the not-exactly-a-law of supply have been created, but you're free to research it. You'd probably understand that stuff better than me, since its mathy. What I do know is that my "if such n such, then failure in five four three two one..." comments are not meant to be snide. If supply and demand are wrong, the economy would not function the way it does now, big league, bigly. Most economic principles (at least as far as I can tell) are derived from supply and demand. When we do comparative statics by applying minimum wage to the model, we get decreased quantity demanded for labor.* The law of demand and not-exactly-a-law of supply have been verified scientifically so thoroughly that they're called laws (except supply, which has one small caveat in some hypothetical situation that I don't think has been conclusively observed in the real world, but that can exist theoretically).

*Previously I said "demand" instead of "quantity demanded." The comparative statics with ceteris paribus shows decrease in quantity demanded (movement along the curve), not a decrease in demand (shift of the curve itself). It's not uncommon to get the two mixed up, but the nitpick is important technically. Most writing from non-economists about economics uses "demand" for both even though it's wrong. I've done it more than once for sure.