Villageidiot9411

@gamefreak9: Did he just get served?

OOOooo *cover mouth* Daimmmmm

As with everything else on the internet right now, the answer will always be Alison Brie.

@AlmostSwedish: haha, I should also be studying. Oh, I was not offended... it's just the only way I know how to communicate online without sounding too aggressive. It's hard to communicate without facial cues. :P (EMOTICONS? OH WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?)

Just a quick point on the analogy, I think that's why it's necessary to stay constantly aware of what economics mean or in fact, anything that is taken for granted. In the case of chemistry, it's great that theories can replace one or two steps. But for economics, humans are more complicated than that and I find that economics is a very stubborn subject. Once a model is applied, it seems the only way theoretical supporters can continue in debate is to beat an idea over the head repeatedly to the point where it stops being a debate. It just becomes a shout match, not unlike something religious. What I am saying is that, whether something is contradictory, it is to be taken into account.

I know that it sounds like I am proposing we should argue in an infinite loop, but I think it goes without saying that it's a weird problem faced by academics and critical thinking. That to be persuasive, often, points are completely ignored not on the basis that it is universally false but on the basis that it is unknown (such as me with economics) or the need to convince others. I am here to admit that it is a delicate balance that is a necessary sacrifice to advance subjects. Or else, nothing would be published.. (and it's also why we have deadlines :)) right? :P

P.S I know this opens an easily pigeon-hole-able WORLD IS NOT FLAT or NAZI argument such as, "but it's not necessary to reopen the debate on whether or not the world is flat", seriously... that is not my point, I am simply saying that on things that are completely theoretical, abstract and intangible, it is a necessity to continue question it precisely because it is complicated.

ANYWAYS.. I AM OUT. BACK TO READING ABOUT SLAVES.

@AlmostSwedish: Oh, I do not subscribe to the whole idea that economics don't care about people... It's just seems that after a while, it seize to be a model for understanding and becomes something else. I just think it's difficult to move away from the subject of the meaning of economics when words like "efficiency" and "maximization" are involved. Now, I do not understand economics as you or AZ123 or anyone who actually studies the matter, but from the outside, it's a question worth asking.

Now let me elaborate a little bit, I understand that the idea of economics is to provide something tangible for human understanding for abstract ideas, but how far can these models project?

(I am not trying to criticize you, I actually want a better answer than just a "sad misconception")

Interesting discussion. Quick question... I will not be as eloquent as anyone in this thread but here goes nothing...

Why is it that whenever I read anything economics, there seize to be any sign of humanity? We all become numbers and it frightens me.