economics, is a mumbo jumbo which, has never been a favourite subject but yes it has been a subject which has taught me a lot to think about the scarcity of resources and how to get along with these resources.
The logical contradictions have been exposed in Alex Gheg's video. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
You and Mr Clifford's ACDC Economics are the best economics teachers on the web. Your videos and diagrams have been a godsend since my economics professors have both been total goof offs who just show up for class and read slides.
@jodiecongirl1 (cont. 2/3) be more individuals, groups, and governments that were willing to experiment and test the various aspects of the Austrian theory. But what we have instead, especially in the U.S., is a Keynesian academic monopoly that won't let go control of the reigns to anyone else unless it supports their theory or advances their agenda whether it's from accidental benign means or subversive malicious intended actions. Interesting note, I have noticed similar patterns and
@jodiecongirl1 There is some empirical evidence out there based on the Austrian theory if you search for it. Reason why it's not as prevalent is mainly because the majority of world governments is stuck on the Keynesian theory and can't let go of the power/authority/prestige/job security/financial gain those various political positions have obtained throughout the years. If governments and people were not so closed minded and stepped back to see the grand scheme of things, perhaps there would
@rabbi33w pffffffft. Just like every other so called "Austrian", all you can do is shit all over Keynes and maybe drop a couple one-liner articles of dogma. A lot of people, like you, present themselves as really knowing their shit, but when it comes down to it, you're unable to display basic knowledge. I've yet to meet anybody who claims to be an Austrian who wasn't a complete economic illiterate.
Can't wait to pick up one of those textbooks with GDP = C + I + G + X - M. In the tradition of empiricism, those "real economics" schools have *demonstrated* superbly their ability to predict and alleviate economic maladies. Not once should the contradiction of reality with your mechanistic theory ever give you pause, no, no! You guys are right up there with the Physicists and Chemists in your knowledge of and control over your respective phenomena!
Scholarly debates within a YT comment section are too far and between. If you had the sincerity to understand what the Austrians were really saying about mainstream economics beyond the simplistic assumption that they "hate teh maths / scientific method cos they're dummies," you'd have read Mises' "Theory and History" by now. And, because you have refused to by now, my chances of having a constructive conversation with a social positivist is effectively nil.
This is the tu quoque fallacy. Even if you want to believe I haven't sufficiently studied aggregative economics (what's funny is I have degrees in applied math and physics and know more about modeling phenomena with differential equations and the accompanying limitations moreso than your run-of-the-mill economist; Rothbard also had a math degree--so, to even attempt to suggest Austrian economists are math-averse...), this doesn't remove your evasion of studying praxeology.
If two parties don't understand the other's foundation upon which they make claims, they're just going to beat their chests and talk past each other. I've taken micro (which I liked) and macro in college and I read the General Theory alongside Hazlitt's "Failure of the New Economics." This is in addition to having of course read Human Action, Man, Economy, and State, etc. etc.. I understand where the two parties are disagreeing philosophically. It's been my experience
that the Austrians are far and away more aware of where their rivals are coming from than their rivals are of them. For, if a member of one of the aggregative schools did understand Austrian a priorism, they'd know to not make the simple objection "they hate Science, mang!" You'd instead say "no, we can make functions in economics, we can statistically aggregate data and control variables in complex, dynamic global markets and here's why."
@selfrealizedexile "For, if a member of one of the aggregative schools did understand Austrian a priorism, they'd know to not make the simple objection "they hate Science, mang!" You'd instead say "no, we can make functions in economics, we can statistically aggregate data and control variables in complex, dynamic global markets and here's why.""
I would say that it is appropriate to just leave it at "they hates science", actually.
@selfrealizedexile "For, if a member of one of the aggregative schools did understand Austrian a priorism,"
Lol I was actually going to accuse Austrians of being nothing more than a bunch of apriori pontificators, but you beat me to it. The difference is I think this is a bad thing.
Why should an economist be responsible for explaining the basic cornerstone of their discipline to someone who thinks he knows already knows it all apriori? You just hates science and the maths.
Truthfully, all statements, even empirically-based ones, are nothing but propositions deduced from premises. To think humans can do anything but speak in the realm of theory is to demonstrate philosophical ignorance; even the concept of Empiricism and Positivism exists in the realm of theory; data can't explain itself--active, human minds with presuppositions do.
You're speaking with a future scientist when I finish my PhD whom is telling you you should maybe think twice before assuming your controlled experiment is sufficiently controlled--the pre-condition before ANY science may be practiced. It's not that I hate science--I love it. It's the best tool we have of understanding the natural world. But, to think you can control and test on humans the same way we do on atoms is sheer delusion and megalomania.
You'd be familiar with all the Austrian weak points and deconstruct Rothbard, Mises, Hulsmann, etc.. But, instead you want to have a conversation wherein all of the aggregative, positivist premises are already taken to be true and then laugh at your opponents for being "unscientific," backward cretins while having zero philosophical appreciation for where your opponent is actually coming from. So who's trolling who?
@selfrealizedexile Actually, what I want is for one of you little Austrians to actually say something rather than whine and cry about nobody taking you seriously. You're wrong, I have great philosophical appreciation for where you're coming from. I love that you think empiricism is crap and that you can figure out the whole of economics in your head without recourse to the real world. I've always found absurdity entertaining.
There's a reason why we make progress in Physics and Chemistry, but have made zero progress for centuries in controlling and understanding markets through positivistic methods--we just keep re-hashing the old economic fallacies from Aristotle to Marx.
You've also misunderstood what praxeology is really stating. It's stating that we can understand the logic of human decision-making by virtue of being humans. It is not saying we know that the price of X will be Y at time T.
@selfrealizedexile "You've also misunderstood what praxeology is really stating. It's stating that we can understand the logic of human decision-making by virtue of being humans"
So complex statistical analysis of history is worthless because somebody might have missed a variable, (you never know because won't bother checking the work) but pretending to KNOW human nature (lol) and applying it to economics is going to yield a precise result.
Positivistic economics is far from being the same as, say, complex meteorological analysis leaving out one variable in their PDE's. We're talking about laboratory specimens that can think and react to your stimulative testing. If atoms were capable of changing their behavior because they understood someone was watching them, Chemistry couldn't exist. If each time we put NaCl in a solvent, it did something different because of who dropped it in the beaker, would you call
@selfrealizedexile "economics is far from being the same as, say, complex meteorological analysis"
Nobody says it is. You're still just attacking economics. Are EVER going to actually say anything? Attacking economics doesn't mean that you know anything. Don't any of you Austrians behave any differently?
THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS YOU KNOW. Yeah, I know. Stiglitz knows that too. Can we get beyond kindergarten please?
that Science? Are we really going to say econometricians crude attempts to isolate market behavior from the totality of the global economy is the same as me squirting distilled H2O in a beaker for subsequent solute tests?
It's not that Austrians aren't aware they are incapable of empirically-falsifying their deduced propositions. The only way they can be showed wrong is by attacking the logic employed and/or their axioms. But, they believe it to be the same situation with
@selfrealizedexile "Are we really going to say econometricians crude attempts to isolate market behavior from the totality of the global economy is the same as me squirting distilled H2O in a beaker for subsequent solute tests?"
No. Who says it is? Your strawman attacks are really telling. You're more interested in attacking economics than you are in understanding it.
You've misunderstood "economics" with the positivistic method of attempting to understand it. Economics as I and other Austrians understand it is the "Logic of Human Action." I have spoken on this matter many times already. What specifically are you wanting me to speak on within what you consider "economics"?
"It's clear that any understanding of economics you have has been gleaned from Austrian sites intent on attacking economics."
Wouldn't anyone's education in economics have come from some source that an opponent could fallaciously conclude is mistaken because they simply don't like the source? It'd be the same as me saying "it sounds to me like all your understanding of economics came from ivory tower gibberish divorced from causal-realism."
@selfrealizedexile "Wouldn't anyone's education in economics have come from some source that an opponent could fallaciously conclude is mistaken because they simply don't like the source?"
It has nothing to do with how much I like the source. It has to do with your understanding of real economics coming from people who aren't real economists, but do have an axe to grind against real economists.
You're still employing authority fallacies. And, for the record, I could just as easily turn your own argument and impatience against you, insisting you have yet to demonstrate a true criticism of the Austrian method beyond "dey hate teh sciences, derp." To evade their criticisms, you must show how it is you can establish functions of human markets, functions upon which you may mathematically aggregate and operate and will not be compromised by changing human behavior.
@selfrealizedexile "You're still employing authority fallacies blah blah blah...." That's nice. How about one more chance to tell me something about Austrian economics other than attacking real economics?
@selfrealizedexile I'm not asking you to tell me EVERYTHING. But if I wanted a chemist to tell me SOMETHING about chemistry, he'd be able to do it in 500 characters.
My problem with you Austrians is that the only thing you EVER do is attack economics without presenting any knowledge of your own.
I'm giving you the chance to show me the best of what Austrians have to offer, but instead of seeing it as an opportunity, you use the broadness of the issue as an excuse.
You're wanting me to give you a 500 character introduction to Austrian economics. Is wikipedia'ing Austrian Economics that difficult, bro?
"The Austrian School of economics is a school of economic thought that advocates methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments, the theory that money is non-neutral, the theory that the capital structure of economies consists of heterogeneous goods that have multispecific uses which must be aligned, and emphasizes
@selfrealizedexile "You're wanting me to give you a 500 character introduction to Austrian economics."
No, shithead, I am not. I'm asking you to say something. Anything. And don't use 500 characters as an excuse when you've already written me a thousand words, that's just bullshit. Take two posts, take another ten. You've already written me 10 posts saying noting more than "empricism sux". Another 10 to tell me what you really think shouldn't be to much to ask, should it?
@devourerofbabies Defending mainstream economics is like trying to defend the Soviet Communist system. They tried justifying the killing of millions of their own citizens to prove their system would work and you are trying to justify reckless abuse of the printing press to prove mainstream economic theories are correct.
You need to be cured of your fundamentalism. Do the world a favor & take the FunVax.
@jaeLAX23 Question: Just what did you think your little post here was going to accomplish? Reckless abuse of the printing press? Is that what you think mainstream economics is? Criticism is fine, but it should be a well informed criticism.
It's Austrians who need to be cured of their fundamentalism.
@devourerofbabies I don't "think" that's what it is, the proof is in the pudding. Quantitative easing my a*#. Call it what it is, rape. BTW "devourerofbabies" informs people you have Malthusian tendency in your thinking. You live in denial as well as in fear. This combustible mixture of will full ignorance & lunacy is not healthy for you.
I would personally stress that it probably is the only school of economics whose conclusions actually necessitate the advocacy of the absence of the State. It probably uniquely sees capital as heterogeneous and structured where the mainstream aggregates capital and demand into blobs that mask cause and effect.
@selfrealizedexile And I've already told you why telling me to go and read a book isn't anything at all.
If you can't elucidate your opinion without recourse to a book, then you don't really understand it.
You haven't demonstrated to me that you know fuck all about anything, so why do you think I'd be interested in a book you recommend? Show me you or the Austrian school have something to say.
But, I wouldn't put this burden upon you because I know it can't be done. I know one can't discover a mathematical function or causality of human market behavior through aggregating heterogeneous data. It's logically impossible, a non-sequitur; one can't aggregate causal factors and their effects into data that they attempt to correlate into a meaningful function.
Don't know why the hate and impatience is necessary. Instead, you can calmly show me where I'm mistaken.
believe is through logical reasoning, not appeals to authority. I've already offered you excellent sources of information on the Austrian method of understanding economic behavior, but you've unfortunately refused to accept that as a legitimate source of explanation. You would have me instead expound on it in a YT comment section? Am I to repeat the story of the ABCT with which you're already likely familiar? Housing bubble explanation? What could I possibly give you?
@selfrealizedexile I don't expect you to write a 10,000 word essay on it in a youtube comment section. I would have liked you to within 1,000 words say something of your own position that didn't consist of attacking economics.
I could drop a bibliography on you as well and tell you not to come back until you've read it. It wouldn't demonstrate my understanding of anything. Like every Austrian you have been less than forthcoming.
the aggregative schools. They can no more attempt to make more confident the belief in their propositions. If Austrians thought it was possible through positivism to attain knowledge of markets, they wouldn't be Austrians.
Austrians don't believe their axioms are handed down on stone tablets either, but if you have a problem with one, point it out. I think though that, as sure as one can be on these matters, their axioms are as fundamentally sound as we can posit.
@selfrealizedexile "Austrians don't believe their axioms are handed down on stone tablets either, but if you have a problem with one, point it out. I think though that, as sure as one can be on these matters, their axioms are as fundamentally sound as we can posit."
Still not a single sentence representing any position of your own, strawman attacks on economics notwithstanding.
Try this preface written by Rothbard out. It's a brief, excellent introduction to the Austrian criticism of social positivism. /watch?v=ry8a_SbA25M
The main point being:
"It is just as well that economic theory does not need "testing," for it is impossible to test it in any way by checking its propositions against homogeneous bits of uniform events. For there are no such events. The use of statistics and quantitative data may try to mask this fact, but their seeming
precision is only grounded on historical events that are not homogeneous in any sense. Each historical event is a complex, unique resultant of many causal factors. Since it is unique, it cannot be used for a positivistic test, and since it is unique it cannot be combined with other events in the form of statistical correlations and achieve any meaningful result."
If you are to remain hostile to the Austrian school, at least sharpen your weapons against it by knowing it.
Do you think they're unaware of the dangers and difficulties of historical analysis? Do you think that when a model predicts something they think it's 100% going to happen exactly that way? No, they don't. The economy is one of the most complicated things man has ever attempted to study, and the difficulty of it doesn't make empricism worthless, nor does is mean that a handful of apriori pontificators has anything worthwhile to say.
What "great philosophical appreciation" can exist in the position that condemns a priori deduction? All of Logic and Mathematics is a priori deduction. It is nonsensical to condemn it. Before induction can have any value, deduction must exist. When scientists measure data, the data doesn't just jump in their head and explain themselves in elegant theories. It takes chains of a priori deduction aiming at understanding true *causality* for a theory to be formed.
@selfrealizedexile "All of Logic and Mathematics is a priori deduction. It is nonsensical to condemn it."
That is very true. That does not mean that you can understand complex real world phenomena without recourse to data though. Any scientist would agree that one must make some assumptions at some level. Any scientists would also laugh at you for thinking you could determine anything about the real world apriori, which is what Austrians try to do.
You're still misunderstanding the method. Austrians would be contradicting themselves if they believed they could "time" the market. What the school does instead is deduce economic consequences based on axioms of human action and if demonstrated government behavior continues. An example of this predictive technique is their realization that inflation must artificially stimulate investment, but must also imbalance the capital structure and its structure of production.
@selfrealizedexile "Austrians would be contradicting themselves if they believed they could "time" the market. What the school does instead is deduce economic consequences based on axioms of human action"
And you have complete understanding of human nature? And how was this determined? Not through empiricism, surely.
The problem with that approach is that I can simply claim human nature is different from what you claim.
That is not the same thing as saying the NASDAQ is going to do this on September 23, 2013 at 10:13 AM. It is logically impossible to predict human events for such knowledge would invariably go on to alter present conditions, thereby changing the future.
Actually, even New Keynesians and Neo-Classical economists must concede some reliance on presupposed knowledge of human action as well. Your criticism--if it is to be one--exists on both sides.
@selfrealizedexile But real economists don't pretend to be able to predict events with that kind of precision either. So what's your point?
You're right that real economists also start with some assumptions of human nature. That's why I'm also critical of real economists. But there's a difference.
1) Real economists admit their assumptions are not knowledge
2) Real economists have a method for examining reality and checking it against their assumptions. Austrians do not.
@selfrealizedexile "If you are to remain hostile to the Austrian school, at least sharpen your weapons against it by knowing it."
You think that little quote you gave is anything new to me? Bitch please. The difference that you think it's a knockdown argument against an entire discipline. It is not an intelligent criticism. Rather than look at any actual analyses, the Austrian simply cries "it's too hard" and uses that as an excuse for discarding empiricism as a whole.
We have had you attacking mainstream economics for six posts or so, which is excruciatingly typical of an Austrian. Attack, attack, attack, and never shall you say anything about your own point of view. Never did you once give me an example of your reasoning, or an argument, or even a position of yours.
So you can attack real economists. That's nice. What do YOU have to say? Fuck all, apparently.
If you think this has been a "lengthy exchange," you must be quite the philosophical novice. I've had book-length e-mail exchanges with Anarcho-Syndicalists, Keynesians, Imperialists etc..
I already provided you with a short introduction to my position through that link. If you want the extended version of an Austrian's take on economics listen to this /watch?v=BojfG6fmYEU . If you want an even longer version, read Rothbard or Mises. Not hard, bro.
@selfrealizedexile It's a lengthy exchange for a YT convo. You can take your condescension and shove it up your ass, motherfucker. You want to discuss anything with me, you can drop the bullshit right now or you can fuck off.
I don't want a youtube link from you either. So far the only thing you have done is attack empiricism and economics. When are you going to say what YOU think? I could post a bunch of links and insist you read them too. That means nothing.
A good concept and well produced graphs but some others are correct In saying that the presentation is not animated enough to keep ones interest alive. This can be improved. I guess I would say you have an interesting concept but keep the presentation simple and more animated. Wmwendt
read and research "silent weapon for quite wars" and get back to me. oh, and explain to me how on earth did 227 families get to own 47% of the worlds wealth ? [according to world bank]. 227 families owning half the resources, when there are almost 7 billion on the planet seems, well quite inequal. thx.
@jodiecongirl The roots to economics is the transfers of physicalmediums ofhuman extension in technological evolution orthe basis to the material world of sustenance occupation, the machine being fed the earths natural resources. The concepts of ideological approach becomes the issue when dealing with the needs ofpeople being subjected to the perpetual change of transfers, which questions the whole ideological approach in government and political rhetoric...
@jodiecongirl Well the definition of resources allocation is ; the use to assign the available resources in an economic way.Lets just say the way they do it isn't doing isn't very economic more hurting.For example gas prices in the United States.Where I live its $4.00 a gallon now what I have read on the news websites there is no reason for this in anyway and your taking money.Our gas production stays the same yet gas goes up.But your say supply and demand works on this how about greed-->
@alagon I find the lack of empirical work distressing and thus find it difficult to have a blind adherence to the idea of unregulated markets. The models of neoclassical eocnomics are not perfect, but I find them to be a better starting point than just saying "See?" when attempts to regulate markets go awry. I do think it's great that the Austrian School has aroused a lot of interest in economics outside of the academic world, I juse wish it wasn't so intertwined with libertarian politics.
@jodiecongirl , Austrian Economics is NOT intertwined with Libertarianism. The libertarian philosophy is based on free market economics and the ethics of freedom, but this is consequential, not by purpose.
Modeling INVARIABLY leads you to wrong conclusions, as one tries to model human purposeful decisions, it leads you to NORMATIVE conclusions. Regulations go awry not because of faulty modeling but because of lack of omniscience - a person cannot know everything so as to pretend to REGULATE.
@ftorresgamez austrian economics may not be symbiotically intertwined with libertarianism, but is certainly an admired school of thought that libertarians are fonding of referencing.
@brotherwoo, that may be so, that libertarians are "fond" of referencing Austrian Economics, just like biologists are "fond" of referencing Natural Selection, and physics are "fond" of referencing quantum mechanics, and chemists are "fond" of referencing the atomic theory for matter. Maybe the "fondness" comes from the SOUNDESS of the theory and not simply aesthetics.
Pls answer my question, If Austrian economics is not superior to keynesian, then how is it that the Austrian economists predicted the crash so perfectly while a lot of keynesians didnt see it coming.
@jodiecongirl The so-called theorists that insist on presenting mathematical models and mostly rely on empiricism are precisely often doing pseudoscience (early on in history, some people thought they could design economics the same way physics was).
Basing economic theory on individual action isn’t absurd at all, but people that like to write down some fuzzy mathematical formulæ under any pretext will just scorn this out of pure pedantry.
As an economics student, I'd like to compliment you on the work that you've done in putting together these videos :) I think you do a great job of explaining the concepts clearly and concisely, and judging by the number of videos you've made, I can tell you've put in lots of effort. Digital, open access media is the way forward RE education, so much respect for contributing to that!
I'm really glad you put these up. It's great to be able to get all this back into my head. I remember most of it form way back when - but I love to just nail it down before I jump deeper into it. (That and I'm just a sucker for econ classes. Now, THAT'S strange...)
You have the natural gift for teaching, but your nervousness breaks the fluency and holds you back from being emotive. All it will take is time/repetition to make your delivery flow perfectly.
That's my brain going "I'm staring into a camera and would much rather be discussing actual content and examples than trying to introduce a field which I would argue needs no introduction." I get the same way on the first day of class. I promise it gets better. :)
Loosen up more and smile. Relax, you look rather nervous and you kinda have a swaying thing going on. Good for a first video though, lots of potential.
economics, is a mumbo jumbo which, has never been a favourite subject but yes it has been a subject which has taught me a lot to think about the scarcity of resources and how to get along with these resources.
sirnameless007 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The logical contradictions have been exposed in Alex Gheg's video. Just ask 2 simple questions. What is quality? What is convenience? One equation can explain it all. youtube.com/watch?v=2c4mvGekYZY
IlirMr 2 weeks ago
i would really love t if you sat on my face.
ThAtB0yFaEfiNtRY 2 months ago
This was very helpful. Thank you.
JeremiahDaryl89 2 months ago
You and Mr Clifford's ACDC Economics are the best economics teachers on the web. Your videos and diagrams have been a godsend since my economics professors have both been total goof offs who just show up for class and read slides.
bizzarromilkman 2 months ago
MILF
hyberankka 3 months ago
you are nervous and lack explanation for your definitions ......
niazbetab 3 months ago
go back to romania gypsy
dgkmikamism 3 months ago
@jodiecongirl1 (cont. 3/3) attitudes in the science community and other areas as well.
rabbi33w 3 months ago
@jodiecongirl1 (cont. 2/3) be more individuals, groups, and governments that were willing to experiment and test the various aspects of the Austrian theory. But what we have instead, especially in the U.S., is a Keynesian academic monopoly that won't let go control of the reigns to anyone else unless it supports their theory or advances their agenda whether it's from accidental benign means or subversive malicious intended actions. Interesting note, I have noticed similar patterns and
rabbi33w 3 months ago 2
@rabbi33w God this statement is so true!!!!
Cubangansta01 2 months ago
@jodiecongirl1 There is some empirical evidence out there based on the Austrian theory if you search for it. Reason why it's not as prevalent is mainly because the majority of world governments is stuck on the Keynesian theory and can't let go of the power/authority/prestige/job security/financial gain those various political positions have obtained throughout the years. If governments and people were not so closed minded and stepped back to see the grand scheme of things, perhaps there would
rabbi33w 3 months ago 2
@rabbi33w pffffffft. Just like every other so called "Austrian", all you can do is shit all over Keynes and maybe drop a couple one-liner articles of dogma. A lot of people, like you, present themselves as really knowing their shit, but when it comes down to it, you're unable to display basic knowledge. I've yet to meet anybody who claims to be an Austrian who wasn't a complete economic illiterate.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies I think some "Austrian" dudes wrote some books about what they meant. Maybe you could start reading them?
edwinorc 1 month ago
@edwinorc That's a good suggestion. I'll counter with the suggestion that you go and read some real economics.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
Can't wait to pick up one of those textbooks with GDP = C + I + G + X - M. In the tradition of empiricism, those "real economics" schools have *demonstrated* superbly their ability to predict and alleviate economic maladies. Not once should the contradiction of reality with your mechanistic theory ever give you pause, no, no! You guys are right up there with the Physicists and Chemists in your knowledge of and control over your respective phenomena!
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile Whereas Austrian so called "economics" simply says FREE MARKET 4-EVR. Yawn.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You could just as easily turn that lame response against itself. CENTRALIZED POWER WITH NONE OF THE ABUSES... PROMISE!!
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile Do you actually have anything to say about economics, or are you just going to troll?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
Scholarly debates within a YT comment section are too far and between. If you had the sincerity to understand what the Austrians were really saying about mainstream economics beyond the simplistic assumption that they "hate teh maths / scientific method cos they're dummies," you'd have read Mises' "Theory and History" by now. And, because you have refused to by now, my chances of having a constructive conversation with a social positivist is effectively nil.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "you'd have read Mises' "Theory and History" by now."
And if you really cared about econ, you'd study it. Any time you ask me whether I've read Mises or Hayek, I'm going to tell you to go study econ.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
This is the tu quoque fallacy. Even if you want to believe I haven't sufficiently studied aggregative economics (what's funny is I have degrees in applied math and physics and know more about modeling phenomena with differential equations and the accompanying limitations moreso than your run-of-the-mill economist; Rothbard also had a math degree--so, to even attempt to suggest Austrian economists are math-averse...), this doesn't remove your evasion of studying praxeology.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
If two parties don't understand the other's foundation upon which they make claims, they're just going to beat their chests and talk past each other. I've taken micro (which I liked) and macro in college and I read the General Theory alongside Hazlitt's "Failure of the New Economics." This is in addition to having of course read Human Action, Man, Economy, and State, etc. etc.. I understand where the two parties are disagreeing philosophically. It's been my experience
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
that the Austrians are far and away more aware of where their rivals are coming from than their rivals are of them. For, if a member of one of the aggregative schools did understand Austrian a priorism, they'd know to not make the simple objection "they hate Science, mang!" You'd instead say "no, we can make functions in economics, we can statistically aggregate data and control variables in complex, dynamic global markets and here's why."
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile "For, if a member of one of the aggregative schools did understand Austrian a priorism, they'd know to not make the simple objection "they hate Science, mang!" You'd instead say "no, we can make functions in economics, we can statistically aggregate data and control variables in complex, dynamic global markets and here's why.""
I would say that it is appropriate to just leave it at "they hates science", actually.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "For, if a member of one of the aggregative schools did understand Austrian a priorism,"
Lol I was actually going to accuse Austrians of being nothing more than a bunch of apriori pontificators, but you beat me to it. The difference is I think this is a bad thing.
Why should an economist be responsible for explaining the basic cornerstone of their discipline to someone who thinks he knows already knows it all apriori? You just hates science and the maths.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
Truthfully, all statements, even empirically-based ones, are nothing but propositions deduced from premises. To think humans can do anything but speak in the realm of theory is to demonstrate philosophical ignorance; even the concept of Empiricism and Positivism exists in the realm of theory; data can't explain itself--active, human minds with presuppositions do.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You're speaking with a future scientist when I finish my PhD whom is telling you you should maybe think twice before assuming your controlled experiment is sufficiently controlled--the pre-condition before ANY science may be practiced. It's not that I hate science--I love it. It's the best tool we have of understanding the natural world. But, to think you can control and test on humans the same way we do on atoms is sheer delusion and megalomania.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You'd be familiar with all the Austrian weak points and deconstruct Rothbard, Mises, Hulsmann, etc.. But, instead you want to have a conversation wherein all of the aggregative, positivist premises are already taken to be true and then laugh at your opponents for being "unscientific," backward cretins while having zero philosophical appreciation for where your opponent is actually coming from. So who's trolling who?
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile Actually, what I want is for one of you little Austrians to actually say something rather than whine and cry about nobody taking you seriously. You're wrong, I have great philosophical appreciation for where you're coming from. I love that you think empiricism is crap and that you can figure out the whole of economics in your head without recourse to the real world. I've always found absurdity entertaining.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
There's a reason why we make progress in Physics and Chemistry, but have made zero progress for centuries in controlling and understanding markets through positivistic methods--we just keep re-hashing the old economic fallacies from Aristotle to Marx.
You've also misunderstood what praxeology is really stating. It's stating that we can understand the logic of human decision-making by virtue of being humans. It is not saying we know that the price of X will be Y at time T.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "You've also misunderstood what praxeology is really stating. It's stating that we can understand the logic of human decision-making by virtue of being humans"
So complex statistical analysis of history is worthless because somebody might have missed a variable, (you never know because won't bother checking the work) but pretending to KNOW human nature (lol) and applying it to economics is going to yield a precise result.
That about right?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
Positivistic economics is far from being the same as, say, complex meteorological analysis leaving out one variable in their PDE's. We're talking about laboratory specimens that can think and react to your stimulative testing. If atoms were capable of changing their behavior because they understood someone was watching them, Chemistry couldn't exist. If each time we put NaCl in a solvent, it did something different because of who dropped it in the beaker, would you call
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "economics is far from being the same as, say, complex meteorological analysis"
Nobody says it is. You're still just attacking economics. Are EVER going to actually say anything? Attacking economics doesn't mean that you know anything. Don't any of you Austrians behave any differently?
THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS YOU KNOW. Yeah, I know. Stiglitz knows that too. Can we get beyond kindergarten please?
Have anything of your own to say yet?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
that Science? Are we really going to say econometricians crude attempts to isolate market behavior from the totality of the global economy is the same as me squirting distilled H2O in a beaker for subsequent solute tests?
It's not that Austrians aren't aware they are incapable of empirically-falsifying their deduced propositions. The only way they can be showed wrong is by attacking the logic employed and/or their axioms. But, they believe it to be the same situation with
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "Are we really going to say econometricians crude attempts to isolate market behavior from the totality of the global economy is the same as me squirting distilled H2O in a beaker for subsequent solute tests?"
No. Who says it is? Your strawman attacks are really telling. You're more interested in attacking economics than you are in understanding it.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You've misunderstood "economics" with the positivistic method of attempting to understand it. Economics as I and other Austrians understand it is the "Logic of Human Action." I have spoken on this matter many times already. What specifically are you wanting me to speak on within what you consider "economics"?
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile What I'm calling economics is economics.
"Economics as I and other Austrians understand it is the Logic of Human Action."
And I look forward to the day when you have something to say about it rather than making strawman attacks on economics.
It's clear that any understanding of economics you have has been gleaned from Austrian sites intent on attacking economics
Gimme some of your Austrian wisdom already, or shut the fuck up. My patience is about done
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
"It's clear that any understanding of economics you have has been gleaned from Austrian sites intent on attacking economics."
Wouldn't anyone's education in economics have come from some source that an opponent could fallaciously conclude is mistaken because they simply don't like the source? It'd be the same as me saying "it sounds to me like all your understanding of economics came from ivory tower gibberish divorced from causal-realism."
The only way we decide what to
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "Wouldn't anyone's education in economics have come from some source that an opponent could fallaciously conclude is mistaken because they simply don't like the source?"
It has nothing to do with how much I like the source. It has to do with your understanding of real economics coming from people who aren't real economists, but do have an axe to grind against real economists.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You're still employing authority fallacies. And, for the record, I could just as easily turn your own argument and impatience against you, insisting you have yet to demonstrate a true criticism of the Austrian method beyond "dey hate teh sciences, derp." To evade their criticisms, you must show how it is you can establish functions of human markets, functions upon which you may mathematically aggregate and operate and will not be compromised by changing human behavior.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "You're still employing authority fallacies blah blah blah...." That's nice. How about one more chance to tell me something about Austrian economics other than attacking real economics?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
If you want information from me, you have to be a bit more specific than that. That's like asking me out-of-the-blue:
"Quick! Tell me all about Chemistry!"
"What do you want to know?"
"You better answer me right now or I'm taking my ball and going home!"
"Oh, here's this Chem textbook if you're interested."
"NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"
"Uhm...hrm?"
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile I'm not asking you to tell me EVERYTHING. But if I wanted a chemist to tell me SOMETHING about chemistry, he'd be able to do it in 500 characters.
My problem with you Austrians is that the only thing you EVER do is attack economics without presenting any knowledge of your own.
I'm giving you the chance to show me the best of what Austrians have to offer, but instead of seeing it as an opportunity, you use the broadness of the issue as an excuse.
pfffft
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You're wanting me to give you a 500 character introduction to Austrian economics. Is wikipedia'ing Austrian Economics that difficult, bro?
"The Austrian School of economics is a school of economic thought that advocates methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments, the theory that money is non-neutral, the theory that the capital structure of economies consists of heterogeneous goods that have multispecific uses which must be aligned, and emphasizes
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile "You're wanting me to give you a 500 character introduction to Austrian economics."
No, shithead, I am not. I'm asking you to say something. Anything. And don't use 500 characters as an excuse when you've already written me a thousand words, that's just bullshit. Take two posts, take another ten. You've already written me 10 posts saying noting more than "empricism sux". Another 10 to tell me what you really think shouldn't be to much to ask, should it?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "Is wikipedia'ing Austrian Economics that difficult, bro?"
Done that.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies Defending mainstream economics is like trying to defend the Soviet Communist system. They tried justifying the killing of millions of their own citizens to prove their system would work and you are trying to justify reckless abuse of the printing press to prove mainstream economic theories are correct.
You need to be cured of your fundamentalism. Do the world a favor & take the FunVax.
jaeLAX23 3 weeks ago
@jaeLAX23 Question: Just what did you think your little post here was going to accomplish? Reckless abuse of the printing press? Is that what you think mainstream economics is? Criticism is fine, but it should be a well informed criticism.
It's Austrians who need to be cured of their fundamentalism.
devourerofbabies 3 weeks ago
@devourerofbabies I don't "think" that's what it is, the proof is in the pudding. Quantitative easing my a*#. Call it what it is, rape. BTW "devourerofbabies" informs people you have Malthusian tendency in your thinking. You live in denial as well as in fear. This combustible mixture of will full ignorance & lunacy is not healthy for you.
jaeLAX23 3 weeks ago
@jaeLAX23 "This combustible mixture of will full ignorance & lunacy is not healthy for you."
Funny, that's what I was going to say to you.
If you're going to criticize economics before you even have the barest understanding of what economics is, then your mind is beyond salvage. Goodbye.
devourerofbabies 3 weeks ago
@devourerofbabies
the organizing power of the price mechanism."
I would personally stress that it probably is the only school of economics whose conclusions actually necessitate the advocacy of the absence of the State. It probably uniquely sees capital as heterogeneous and structured where the mainstream aggregates capital and demand into blobs that mask cause and effect.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile And I've already told you why telling me to go and read a book isn't anything at all.
If you can't elucidate your opinion without recourse to a book, then you don't really understand it.
You haven't demonstrated to me that you know fuck all about anything, so why do you think I'd be interested in a book you recommend? Show me you or the Austrian school have something to say.
Attack econ all you want, but what do YOU think?
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
But, I wouldn't put this burden upon you because I know it can't be done. I know one can't discover a mathematical function or causality of human market behavior through aggregating heterogeneous data. It's logically impossible, a non-sequitur; one can't aggregate causal factors and their effects into data that they attempt to correlate into a meaningful function.
Don't know why the hate and impatience is necessary. Instead, you can calmly show me where I'm mistaken.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
believe is through logical reasoning, not appeals to authority. I've already offered you excellent sources of information on the Austrian method of understanding economic behavior, but you've unfortunately refused to accept that as a legitimate source of explanation. You would have me instead expound on it in a YT comment section? Am I to repeat the story of the ABCT with which you're already likely familiar? Housing bubble explanation? What could I possibly give you?
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile I don't expect you to write a 10,000 word essay on it in a youtube comment section. I would have liked you to within 1,000 words say something of your own position that didn't consist of attacking economics.
I could drop a bibliography on you as well and tell you not to come back until you've read it. It wouldn't demonstrate my understanding of anything. Like every Austrian you have been less than forthcoming.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
the aggregative schools. They can no more attempt to make more confident the belief in their propositions. If Austrians thought it was possible through positivism to attain knowledge of markets, they wouldn't be Austrians.
Austrians don't believe their axioms are handed down on stone tablets either, but if you have a problem with one, point it out. I think though that, as sure as one can be on these matters, their axioms are as fundamentally sound as we can posit.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile "Austrians don't believe their axioms are handed down on stone tablets either, but if you have a problem with one, point it out. I think though that, as sure as one can be on these matters, their axioms are as fundamentally sound as we can posit."
Still not a single sentence representing any position of your own, strawman attacks on economics notwithstanding.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
Try this preface written by Rothbard out. It's a brief, excellent introduction to the Austrian criticism of social positivism. /watch?v=ry8a_SbA25M
The main point being:
"It is just as well that economic theory does not need "testing," for it is impossible to test it in any way by checking its propositions against homogeneous bits of uniform events. For there are no such events. The use of statistics and quantitative data may try to mask this fact, but their seeming
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
precision is only grounded on historical events that are not homogeneous in any sense. Each historical event is a complex, unique resultant of many causal factors. Since it is unique, it cannot be used for a positivistic test, and since it is unique it cannot be combined with other events in the form of statistical correlations and achieve any meaningful result."
If you are to remain hostile to the Austrian school, at least sharpen your weapons against it by knowing it.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile
Do you think they're unaware of the dangers and difficulties of historical analysis? Do you think that when a model predicts something they think it's 100% going to happen exactly that way? No, they don't. The economy is one of the most complicated things man has ever attempted to study, and the difficulty of it doesn't make empricism worthless, nor does is mean that a handful of apriori pontificators has anything worthwhile to say.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
What "great philosophical appreciation" can exist in the position that condemns a priori deduction? All of Logic and Mathematics is a priori deduction. It is nonsensical to condemn it. Before induction can have any value, deduction must exist. When scientists measure data, the data doesn't just jump in their head and explain themselves in elegant theories. It takes chains of a priori deduction aiming at understanding true *causality* for a theory to be formed.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile "All of Logic and Mathematics is a priori deduction. It is nonsensical to condemn it."
That is very true. That does not mean that you can understand complex real world phenomena without recourse to data though. Any scientist would agree that one must make some assumptions at some level. Any scientists would also laugh at you for thinking you could determine anything about the real world apriori, which is what Austrians try to do.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
You're still misunderstanding the method. Austrians would be contradicting themselves if they believed they could "time" the market. What the school does instead is deduce economic consequences based on axioms of human action and if demonstrated government behavior continues. An example of this predictive technique is their realization that inflation must artificially stimulate investment, but must also imbalance the capital structure and its structure of production.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile "Austrians would be contradicting themselves if they believed they could "time" the market. What the school does instead is deduce economic consequences based on axioms of human action"
And you have complete understanding of human nature? And how was this determined? Not through empiricism, surely.
The problem with that approach is that I can simply claim human nature is different from what you claim.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
That is not the same thing as saying the NASDAQ is going to do this on September 23, 2013 at 10:13 AM. It is logically impossible to predict human events for such knowledge would invariably go on to alter present conditions, thereby changing the future.
Actually, even New Keynesians and Neo-Classical economists must concede some reliance on presupposed knowledge of human action as well. Your criticism--if it is to be one--exists on both sides.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile But real economists don't pretend to be able to predict events with that kind of precision either. So what's your point?
You're right that real economists also start with some assumptions of human nature. That's why I'm also critical of real economists. But there's a difference.
1) Real economists admit their assumptions are not knowledge
2) Real economists have a method for examining reality and checking it against their assumptions. Austrians do not.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile "If you are to remain hostile to the Austrian school, at least sharpen your weapons against it by knowing it."
You think that little quote you gave is anything new to me? Bitch please. The difference that you think it's a knockdown argument against an entire discipline. It is not an intelligent criticism. Rather than look at any actual analyses, the Austrian simply cries "it's too hard" and uses that as an excuse for discarding empiricism as a whole.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile And after this lengthy exchange, what do we have?
We have had you attacking mainstream economics for six posts or so, which is excruciatingly typical of an Austrian. Attack, attack, attack, and never shall you say anything about your own point of view. Never did you once give me an example of your reasoning, or an argument, or even a position of yours.
So you can attack real economists. That's nice. What do YOU have to say? Fuck all, apparently.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
@devourerofbabies
If you think this has been a "lengthy exchange," you must be quite the philosophical novice. I've had book-length e-mail exchanges with Anarcho-Syndicalists, Keynesians, Imperialists etc..
I already provided you with a short introduction to my position through that link. If you want the extended version of an Austrian's take on economics listen to this /watch?v=BojfG6fmYEU . If you want an even longer version, read Rothbard or Mises. Not hard, bro.
selfrealizedexile 1 month ago
@selfrealizedexile It's a lengthy exchange for a YT convo. You can take your condescension and shove it up your ass, motherfucker. You want to discuss anything with me, you can drop the bullshit right now or you can fuck off.
I don't want a youtube link from you either. So far the only thing you have done is attack empiricism and economics. When are you going to say what YOU think? I could post a bunch of links and insist you read them too. That means nothing.
devourerofbabies 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey i just made a video on perfect competition id appreciate it if ye all watched thanks :)
MrGalway10 3 months ago
A good concept and well produced graphs but some others are correct In saying that the presentation is not animated enough to keep ones interest alive. This can be improved. I guess I would say you have an interesting concept but keep the presentation simple and more animated. Wmwendt
wwendt9 4 months ago
boring.
jimmyshitbags 4 months ago
Hey look it's Natalie Portman!
iKazVS 4 months ago
Economist are the people who charge money to explain why one is poor.
SIJAR 5 months ago
Jodi can you put a video that shows exactly how you do it with models.
SIJAR 5 months ago
I'm an econ student... i get to do it with both :)
dettmannp 6 months ago
what about talking those economics over a coffee?
imkansizartikbu 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
read and research "silent weapon for quite wars" and get back to me. oh, and explain to me how on earth did 227 families get to own 47% of the worlds wealth ? [according to world bank]. 227 families owning half the resources, when there are almost 7 billion on the planet seems, well quite inequal. thx.
Gizziiusa 7 months ago
lol, people become critical when they see a lady teaching something, she's actually really good. Very interesting teacher.
byen8 8 months ago 2
They do it with model because there's no shortage of demand for the curves that they supply. Ha!
ThePonchoParty 10 months ago
dammit you're a Keynesian?? :(
zsoltii100 1 year ago
wait, I started watching this and then it stroke me - this is useful for accountants too xD?
fleetingray 1 year ago
*face palm*
Esoparagon 1 year ago
good you on you for posting!
demilliom 1 year ago
Instead of saying resources allocation, you should have just said Hi, I'm a Keynesian.
Xtragicfever 1 year ago
Instead of saying resources allocation, you should have just said Hi, I'm a Keynesian
Xtragicfever 1 year ago 2
economists get all the models
EdwardCullensMayo 1 year ago
What do you think about Asian economics?
djufman 1 year ago
You are a good teacher...could you next time.. say what videos go next...
mikhailstewart 1 year ago
Great teacher and keep it up !
Samiaan 1 year ago
Economics is the science of Human Action, dear... Not just resources allocation.
ftorresgamez 1 year ago
@ftorresgamez Ah...but it's human actions that determine the resource allocation...
jodiecongirl 1 year ago 25
@jodiecongirl, Yes, but Economics is not the science of allocations, since that would lead you to NORMATIVE, instead of DESCRIPTIVE, conclusions.
ftorresgamez 1 year ago
@jodiecongirl The roots to economics is the transfers of physicalmediums ofhuman extension in technological evolution orthe basis to the material world of sustenance occupation, the machine being fed the earths natural resources. The concepts of ideological approach becomes the issue when dealing with the needs ofpeople being subjected to the perpetual change of transfers, which questions the whole ideological approach in government and political rhetoric...
waypor1 1 year ago
@jodiecongirl Well the definition of resources allocation is ; the use to assign the available resources in an economic way.Lets just say the way they do it isn't doing isn't very economic more hurting.For example gas prices in the United States.Where I live its $4.00 a gallon now what I have read on the news websites there is no reason for this in anyway and your taking money.Our gas production stays the same yet gas goes up.But your say supply and demand works on this how about greed-->
xdeathkidreaperx 9 months ago
What are your thoughts on Austrian Economics?
alagon 1 year ago
@alagon I find the lack of empirical work distressing and thus find it difficult to have a blind adherence to the idea of unregulated markets. The models of neoclassical eocnomics are not perfect, but I find them to be a better starting point than just saying "See?" when attempts to regulate markets go awry. I do think it's great that the Austrian School has aroused a lot of interest in economics outside of the academic world, I juse wish it wasn't so intertwined with libertarian politics.
jodiecongirl 1 year ago
@jodiecongirl , Austrian Economics is NOT intertwined with Libertarianism. The libertarian philosophy is based on free market economics and the ethics of freedom, but this is consequential, not by purpose.
Modeling INVARIABLY leads you to wrong conclusions, as one tries to model human purposeful decisions, it leads you to NORMATIVE conclusions. Regulations go awry not because of faulty modeling but because of lack of omniscience - a person cannot know everything so as to pretend to REGULATE.
ftorresgamez 1 year ago
@ftorresgamez austrian economics may not be symbiotically intertwined with libertarianism, but is certainly an admired school of thought that libertarians are fonding of referencing.
brotherwoo 1 year ago
@brotherwoo, that may be so, that libertarians are "fond" of referencing Austrian Economics, just like biologists are "fond" of referencing Natural Selection, and physics are "fond" of referencing quantum mechanics, and chemists are "fond" of referencing the atomic theory for matter. Maybe the "fondness" comes from the SOUNDESS of the theory and not simply aesthetics.
ftorresgamez 1 year ago
@jodiecongirl Point taken, but I don't believe human action can be predicted with macroeconomic models. Human beings are not atoms.
alagon 1 year ago
@jodiecongirl Hi, nice videos.
Pls answer my question, If Austrian economics is not superior to keynesian, then how is it that the Austrian economists predicted the crash so perfectly while a lot of keynesians didnt see it coming.
crusaderg77 1 year ago
@jodiecongirl
Well, when you understand economics, you'll be "intertwined with libertarian politics" too.
JesseForgione 1 year ago 11
@jodiecongirl The so-called theorists that insist on presenting mathematical models and mostly rely on empiricism are precisely often doing pseudoscience (early on in history, some people thought they could design economics the same way physics was).
Basing economic theory on individual action isn’t absurd at all, but people that like to write down some fuzzy mathematical formulæ under any pretext will just scorn this out of pure pedantry.
SniperMaske 2 months ago
great work, studying economics and using your videos to complement my course ! :)
teejmd91 1 year ago
You do it with models ? I wish I could...
NJN0000 1 year ago
prety interin, ejee
faridjabba 1 year ago
As an economics student, I'd like to compliment you on the work that you've done in putting together these videos :) I think you do a great job of explaining the concepts clearly and concisely, and judging by the number of videos you've made, I can tell you've put in lots of effort. Digital, open access media is the way forward RE education, so much respect for contributing to that!
yallip1 1 year ago
BORING!!!
saradani79 1 year ago
I'm really glad you put these up. It's great to be able to get all this back into my head. I remember most of it form way back when - but I love to just nail it down before I jump deeper into it. (That and I'm just a sucker for econ classes. Now, THAT'S strange...)
seattlealex 2 years ago
I can't really understand all the words you say. But I am a model and would love to do it with you :)
mz2ykt 2 years ago 2
You have the natural gift for teaching, but your nervousness breaks the fluency and holds you back from being emotive. All it will take is time/repetition to make your delivery flow perfectly.
streetmagicstyle 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
id like to fuck you
thafix82 2 years ago
hottie
raiitaly 2 years ago
Study of human action, baby.
bfb8688 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are not a economist
coltsfancolts 2 years ago
Jodie,
great stuff. keep up with a good work.
greetings from GMU
krasleon 2 years ago
You seem really tense...
WiiAreSIN 2 years ago
That's my brain going "I'm staring into a camera and would much rather be discussing actual content and examples than trying to introduce a field which I would argue needs no introduction." I get the same way on the first day of class. I promise it gets better. :)
jodiecongirl 2 years ago
Loosen up more and smile. Relax, you look rather nervous and you kinda have a swaying thing going on. Good for a first video though, lots of potential.
RobotEyesLie 2 years ago
See comment above- that's kind of what happens when you have to give an awkward introduction to a subject but aren't suite sure what to say...
jodiecongirl 2 years ago
the study of SCARCE resource allocation.
foofighter20x 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're no model, and I'm no economist....But I'd do you ;-)
craig1622 2 years ago
Comment removed
craig1622 2 years ago