Maximum inequalities ensue from free markets

[heckler73]

Close only counts in hand grenades. This study is embarrasing.... The fact that people treat it as an explanation for economics is embarassing.

What's "embarassing"[sic] is the fact you are forming a resolute conclusion without even consulting the evidence.
Typical M.O. for this forum, though, so my level of surprise is zero.

 

[NLXSK1]

What's "embarassing"[sic] is the fact you are forming a resolute conclusion without even consulting the evidence.
Typical M.O. for this forum, though, so my level of surprise is zero.

I explained my conclusion to you.

The physicists used a gas transformation without accounting for expansion. Do you not understand the difference between that and economic theory?

I did consult the evidence. You look at a study that is fatally flawed yet supports your world view and heartily approve of it regardless...

 

[heckler73]

I explained my conclusion to you.

The physicists used a gas transformation without accounting for expansion. Do you not understand the difference between that and economic theory?

Say there sunshine, can you explain the difference between the Ideal Gas Law and the Shannon or Theil equations of Entropy?

I did consult the evidence. You look at a study that is fatally flawed yet supports your world view and heartily approve of it regardless...

So, you don't believe there is any wealth aggregation in society whatsoever? The rich don't get richer in your world? All of those statistics showing income distribution over the years and GINI coefficients are utterly meaningless, I suppose.
I looked at this thing as nothing more than a model. It is extremely limited in its representation, but for the purpose of the experiment, it does a good job of giving a plausible quantitative explanation for how wealth winds up in the hands of few.

But I am open to consider your hypothesis (if you have one), so please tell me how wealth doesn't aggregate. Feel free to use all the real world empirical data you can muster up.

 

[NLXSK1]

Say there sunshine, can you explain the difference between the Ideal Gas Law and the Shannon or Theil equations of Entropy?



So, you don't believe there is any wealth aggregation in society whatsoever? The rich don't get richer in your world? All of those statistics showing income distribution over the years and GINI coefficients are utterly meaningless, I suppose.
I looked at this thing as nothing more than a model. It is extremely limited in its representation, but for the purpose of the experiment, it does a good job of giving a plausible quantitative explanation for how wealth winds up in the hands of few.

But I am open to consider your hypothesis (if you have one), so please tell me how wealth doesn't aggregate. Feel free to use all the real world empirical data you can muster up.

Well, for one it assumes that all humans are as simple as a molecule.

My assessment appears to be completely on. If they found that wealth aggregates because of the color blue you would be nodding your head.

Wealth does not aggregate, it is earned and won and lost. Nothing in the study comes close to the reality of economics.

 

[UncleBuck]

Well, for one it assumes that all humans are as simple as a molecule.

My assessment appears to be completely on. If they found that wealth aggregates because of the color blue you would be nodding your head.

Wealth does not aggregate, it is earned and won and lost. Nothing in the study comes close to the reality of economics.

reading that just made me dumber. much dumber.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

reading that just made me dumber. much dumber.

You know for a fact there isn't a force/matter state that's created with life? How do you perform an atomic test on a carbon atom from a thing with life without killing it to show there's no difference? So far the only way we humans know how to examine the internals of atoms is with a particle accelerator. Even if possible, how does life surive that?

 

[cannabineer]

Or where wealth is created...

Why are we listening to a bunch of physicists about economics anyway. Is this the best we got???

Physicists are our best and most rigorous modelers to date.

Imo we should encourage them to refine their models while being stiff critics of where they fail.

This way, we guide them into one day building a model that works.

And then, we will have saddled the lightning. Yeeeeeehaw!

 

[tokeprep]

Physicists are our best and most rigorous modelers to date.

Imo we should encourage them to refine their models while being stiff critics of where they fail.

This way, we guide them into one day building a model that works.

And then, we will have saddled the lightning. Yeeeeeehaw!

Considering how shitty economists' models are...

 

[BigNBushy]

I'll say this, including all of the hard undergrad (regular and organic chemistry, some calculus classes, statistics class was kind of hard, anatomy and physiology, biochemistry, and foreign language) classes, and three semesters in law school, physics was the hardest thing I've ever taken.

Anyone who goes on and gets a Ph.D in physics has my respect, and I'll respect what ever opinion they come up with. Though this might not be of perfect relevance, it gives an interesting insight.

 

[twostrokenut]

I found physics hard as well...had to take it twice.

Econ was a joke.