And formalised mathematics are ignored in mathematical practice by most mathematicians, and even the ones that know of it often don't use that as a foundational language due to relative inconvenience.
I think at this stage, most mathematicians recognize that formal proof verification is a real and interesting thing. We have extremely prominent mathematicians like Scholze & Tao making a point of using these tools.
But in many cases, it's extra effort for not much reward. The patterns which most mathemematicians are interested in are (generally) independent of the particular foundations used to realize them. Whether one invests the effort into formal verification depends on how hard the argument is and how crucial the theorem.
? Babashka is just Clojure, language wise. It lacks the ability to import arbitrary Java libs due to Graal, similarly no runtime type creation (deftype), and does not support the core async library’s go macro (maps it to thread).
Aren’t there always three pieces though? There is 1. Coming up with an idea, 2. Organizing the capital and labor to realize the idea, and 3. The labor to build the thing. Sometimes, that is all one person, but all three pieces are necessary.
This question seems to misunderstand the topic. The assumption here is not that there is no labor involves, but rather that it its amount is not what determines the value of something it's been put towards.
You misunderstood my answer. I wanted to show that labour is the foundation of all value.
Weather this labour gets payed equally to the trade value is a follow up question, not tackled by your wikipedia link either but very important to discuss accumulation of capital.
And i was really interested in finding some value independent from labour.
Not OP but I have not. As an ignorant, I have a burning question (for real, not being facetious): isn't it bullshit?
Judging by the outcomes of the field and the absurd world we live in today with insane boom/bust cycles every few years, sky-high levels of wealth accumulation, inflation out of control world-wide, one cannot wonder how nobody seems to understand it.
From the outside, it looks like either they are producing incorrect/incomplete theories that simply don't work in the real world, or it's all so theoretical that it never really translates into people's lives.
Or, alternatively, the system is working exactly as intended and the goal was always to maximize for a few individuals and not society in the first place.
There’s two main approaches to economics that aren’t bullshit: empiricism and praxeology. With empiricism, you conduct some sort of experiment (or identify a natural experiment) than can verify falsifiable predictions. With praxeology, you work from first principles regarding rational agents. Both mechanisms result in insights that “work” meaning institutions can use these insights to modify their policies. An easy to understand example is the application of the economics to MMORPG game currencies. But these more generally are applied by finance and government departments everywhere. There is a degree of bullshit that enters when there’s a political dynamic, such as with unemployment rate stats or gdp growth stats.
These systems are something but not really representative human economics.
Empiricism is vulnerable to the changing awareness of the participants: if you discover a reliable principle it will be manipulated until it is learned. Once it is learned it is no longer reliable.
Rational agents are typically poor proxies for human behavior, and the more of them you have the worse the narrative to make it even seem that they could plausible be the way humans behave.
I'd recommend Dani Rodrik's Economics Rules that gives you a view of how economists work, what are their limitations and what is their skillset.
I'll try to answer your question through the lens of that book: the models that economists develop work under the models assumptions, and therefore they quite rarely fit well extremely complex phenomena like inflation; in general, economists treat the problems they face on a case per case basis by comparing different models outcomes', looking at the historical data, discussing the merits of the respective arguments for one or the other policy, and obviously depending on the specific goals you find more desirable (equality vs growth for example).
The way the economy is ran is not necessarily representative of the economists consensus, or even that of the economists that are employed by the biggest policymakers, as the policies chosen might be the ones deemed more politically feasible, or more desirable for the particular politician's interests, and not the ones that are economically most sound and well-founded.
By the way, a topic I've been always fascinated by but never inquired further is that of social choice, wherein the economists analyse the incentives of classes such as that of policymakers.
Inflation is a really bad example of a failure of economic theory. First, just because the field might understand how to avoid inflation, doesn’t mean that is actually implemented. And secondly, until recently inflation as measured by cpi has been low to zero for the last decade. I think a sense of proportion needs to be exercised here.
Lots of economic theories are actually pretty strong. Your gripe ought to be with the FOMC abusing Keynes right in the very center of our whole system. Please see my recent comments for an explanation.
I have somewhat. It would be inconsistent if I had stayed the full course to get an entire degree that I had realised was bullshit.
Their assumptions don't hold. Assume people make perfect decisions, assume they all act within their own self-interest, assume perfect information, assume effects to the environment don't matter, neither do human lives. Assume acquiring money is the only goal anybody has.
I love how much these horrible assumptions shape the economic policy of the world.
And how well does that work, unless you are picking the winning economist opinion in hindsight? For any currently open economical topic you will find diverging or even contradictory opinions by well-established economists. Some of them are bound to have been right, after the fact.
I wish it did. If it did, we would have finally gotten rid of most of the monetarist bullshit after it was steadily proven wrong by 2 decades of QE and zero interest rates in Japan and one decade in the western world…
But it doesn't and now the theories that have been empirically wrong for two decades are still in used to explain the current inflation rate…
That's the biggest issue with how mainstream economics works: it mostly stands on two legs (classical and Keynesian, roughly) which are both proven wrong by the real world on a regular basis but come back in flavor when the other one fails (and the Neoclassical synthesis is the wrong approach to this problem, and is in fact wrong twice as often).
To me it seems that it's an issue with the political class rather than with economical theory; at the very least, I've seen these policies denounced from the outset by the economists I follow.
