|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not going to argue this further. It could be that you're right in ways that economists are wrong, it could be that I am accidentally misrepresenting economics (I have spent quite a bit of time studying this specific idea over the course of the months of this debate in an attempt to do my best to not misrepresent economics), or it could be that I'm right. I'm leaving it there.
I'm not disagreeing with you over anything besides your interpretations of science and physics.
I'm not disagreeing with you over economics or your proposed definitions to explain economics.
I just want to know more. Stipulating that people are rational actors is fine with me. I just want to know what else needs to be stipulated and what predictions can be made by these stipulations. I'm not demanding the rigor of physics, but I contest that anything you've said about economics is on par with the predictive power of the hard sciences.
Now... there's a lot more to economics than I understand. I accept that. Maybe it's a lot closer to a science than I understand. That's cool. I'm just curious about how close.
|