Economics... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Seven
- Start date
I'm telling you your model is wrong. The theory doesn't apply to what's going on in reality -- e.g., lack of any private investment in cures, lack of a system that encourages competition for lower cost products that do most of what the highest price models do -- and you keep spewing the theory.
In high-energy physics, this is known as the "assume a spherical chicken" joke.
In high-energy physics, this is known as the "assume a spherical chicken" joke.
How is private enterprise the most important one? State sponsored research has led to countless medical breakthroughs and is still hugely important in fundamental research (hope that's the proper English term).
And economics is a science, but not as far from a hard science as it can get. To talk about scientific proof in relation to economics is very very misleading, if not outright wrong, especially considering I'm not quite sure by what two pieces of "scientific proof" you're referring to here.
- - - Updated - - -
Cow
And from my impression of economics as a whole, this is what the whole field suffers from most of all.
And economics is a science, but not as far from a hard science as it can get. To talk about scientific proof in relation to economics is very very misleading, if not outright wrong, especially considering I'm not quite sure by what two pieces of "scientific proof" you're referring to here.
- - - Updated - - -
Cow
And from my impression of economics as a whole, this is what the whole field suffers from most of all.
Economics is not an exact science. Econ 101. Besides you applied the simplest of all economical theories to your argument, that's not scientific proof.
That's fitting a theory to your argument. So you sound smarter, but you are yet to prove anything. You just talked a lot of fancy stuff about the free market.
Present the data to back your assumption that the market improves a healthcare system and that a private healthcare system is more efficient that a public.
And don't throw around the idea of the invisible hand. There's a reason it's invisible.
That's fitting a theory to your argument. So you sound smarter, but you are yet to prove anything. You just talked a lot of fancy stuff about the free market.
Present the data to back your assumption that the market improves a healthcare system and that a private healthcare system is more efficient that a public.
And don't throw around the idea of the invisible hand. There's a reason it's invisible.
@economics is a scienceIf you think my proof is wrong, and therefore the entire mainstream Economics, since its based on the same line of logic, prove it.
- - - Updated - - -
Notice the contradiction: people say Economics is not a real science because it's not an exact science, meaning not mathematical enough. But when I give a proof with a just a little math in it, they dismiss it as an out of touch theoretical crap.
- - - Updated - - -
Notice the contradiction: people say Economics is not a real science because it's not an exact science, meaning not mathematical enough. But when I give a proof with a just a little math in it, they dismiss it as an out of touch theoretical crap.
Cow
It's because I've lived it it's true. I dare you: try to find one single medical device company that is, say, looking to introduced a low-cost model of MRI that does 90% of what the bleeding edge does. It doesn't exist because it never gets funded because there is never a market for it.
As for cures vs chronic conditions, I'm not going to be some Internet forum dork who wastes his time itemizing a bunch of medical journal URLs for articles you're never going to read. Either you believe that the world is warming or you don't at this point.
Maybe you find comfort in theory that any reality that challenges your confirmation bias seems to be a threat to be dismissed. Whatever your motivations, you might as well be telling me that dinosaurs were tricks placed in the ground by God 4000 years ago.
What is this? I have to disprove something that does not exist? You've presented nothing but a simple theory. Where is the data that confirms your statements?
Man, you sound like a business-school kid who learned about equilibrium and applies that to every single idea of economics and every single political discussion.
- - - Updated - - -
Not mathematical enough? That has nothing to do with it. The biggest problems economics face a science is the foundation of which data is received as well as human behaviour.
1) Economist can't create experiments [very well]. Data is based on what ever the world happens to give.
2) Humans aren't as rational as the assumptions of which economics is build upon aka human behaviour is really hard to foresee.
Fuck it. I'm out. You give me stronk troll vibes.
Economists are as lucky as evolitionary biologists when it comes to data.
Man, you sound like a business-school kid who learned about equilibrium and applies that to every single idea of economics and every single political discussion.
- - - Updated - - -
Not mathematical enough? That has nothing to do with it. The biggest problems economics face a science is the foundation of which data is received as well as human behaviour.
1) Economist can't create experiments [very well]. Data is based on what ever the world happens to give.
2) Humans aren't as rational as the assumptions of which economics is build upon aka human behaviour is really hard to foresee.
Fuck it. I'm out. You give me stronk troll vibes.
Economists are as lucky as evolitionary biologists when it comes to data.
You didn't read or understand the discussion. I didn't prove that pharmaceutical companies invest in cures, which they do. It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't lived in a cave, but to prove it you need empirical evidence. What I did prove is that pharmaceutical companies have incentive to invest in cures.
- - - Updated - - -
It's a good time to quit because that's the first correct statement you've made today.
- - - Updated - - -
I've got no freakin idea what new models these companies are working on. What I know is that there are new models coming out all the time and when they do, the prices of the older ones go down.
- - - Updated - - -
It's a good time to quit because that's the first correct statement you've made today.
- - - Updated - - -
I've got no freakin idea what new models these companies are working on. What I know is that there are new models coming out all the time and when they do, the prices of the older ones go down.
Reminder -- you're dealing with folks who are either socialist, pseudo-Keynesians, or don't know their ass from their face.
