Sounding the Utilitarian alarm! Someone here hasn't done Philosophy 101. Here's the gist of it: utilitarianism is self-contradictory and by consequence self-defeating.
Many people have not had "the luxury" of doing "psych 101" as you call it. I have not but yet I get the gist of what your saying and to me it sounds like you're making an appeal to authority. I'd imagine the authority you're appealing to is a fairly culturally biased one too (101 doesn't sound particularly rigorous). Try to make a reasoned argument for what you want to say rather than regurgitating what was pumped into you as a brat freshman.
They never question him, they don't want to know what others said about him and how those around perceived him, and most importantly, they don't want to actually study his teachings, only as presented by vicars (those speaking on behalf of Keynes).
Because of course, just like the best antidote against a religion is its holy book, the best antidote against Keynesianism is reading Keynes.
Nash says something like "even post keyensians" are really just Keynesians, which is funny but also shows how radically and tangentially he is thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je22xKQekCk
Whats most significant and interesting here is that he came up with the concept of ideal money in the 60's when he was labelled paranoid delusional and fled to Europe.
> Math can give an illusion of accuracy, when the real world is chaotic and often has far more confounding variables than you know about in something as complex as "the economy".
I don't know what you folks are talking about on this thread branch (what with "efficient markets") but Keynesian Economics is the "theory" that suffers from this "illusion of accuracy".
I don't believe in efficient anything, but I know Free Markets Theory involves no Math (only deductive methods like Praxeology).
> I don't believe in efficient anything, but I know Free Markets Theory involves no Math
That's actually not a good sign. Math is refined thinking. If your theory doesn't involve math, it's probably little more than handwaving and could be significantly improved by being formalized a little more.
There is always the risk that people confuse the map with the territory, but it's present regardless of whether you have a differential equation handy for everything or you're just sharing campfire stories.
The deductive process on which Austrian School theory is based, is itself based on Logic. That's as formal as you can get.
> Math is refined thinking.
No, Mr. Poet. Math is an abstract science that can be applied to concrete fields. So far no one has been able to meaningfully apply mathematics to economics, or we would have computers that can simulate markets like we can simulate tornadoes.
> So far no one has been able to meaningfully apply mathematics to economics, or we would have computers that can simulate markets like we can simulate tornadoes.
That only proves those problems are incredibly hard - and require incredible resources and work to think about in a formal, precise way. It's also worth noting that you are therefore no more likely to be a good economist by guessing and waving hands than you're likely to be a good meteorologist by spinning make-believe stories about which way the weather should be. Failure to understand the meaning of this point is a source of tremendous amount of stupid decisions and pointless politics.
Also, don't confuse logic with math. The former is just a subset.
> for example, those who earn more tend to express more fear and anger on Twitter.
That is to be expected. If you know your r/K selection theory, K individuals have larger-than-average amygdalae which is responsible for awareness, risk-assessment and consequentially fear.
K individuals in human beings are those who aren't promiscuous, marry early and have kids, and by consequence are infinitely less likely to be poor.
> Perceived optimists have a lower mean income.
This also makes sense, since r-individuals in human beings are more welcome to hope and change (optimism), and they tend to be less well-off financially since they switch their survival needs onto K-individuals (demanding help from them for paying their student loans, providing food stamps, etc).
