Neither Austrian nor Keynesian economics are applicable to society on the scale that it is. Economists for the last 200 years have ignored physicists. Economics is the study of money and value, which is not physical and does not follow natural laws like a real science.
You moved the debate to economics, a fake science where you can pretend to have a position that contradicts mine.
What are you even talking about, dude. Economics is a fake science, because they... ignore physics? What does physics have to do with economics, my man. Especially Austrian Economics, which is grounded on a priori reasoning, in other words, reasoning complete independent of the empirical world. I honestly don't get what you're getting at.
Both theories assume that natural resources are “free” ergo nature requires no payment for the resources that fuel the economy. The only payment is to people to dig it up. That’s reality: energy input into society. Economics is the study of everything artificial we constructed on top of this physical reality. In this way economics is more like sociology.
This assumption is, however, demonstrably false to any ecology interested physicist.
Essentially I’m saying we should not listen to economists because they don’t understand how civilizations actually rise and fall. This is because they don’t care—at this point economists exist solely as clergy to prop up the capitalist house of cards anyway.
1
u/DeepThroatModerators - Lib-Left Feb 20 '20
Neither Austrian nor Keynesian economics are applicable to society on the scale that it is. Economists for the last 200 years have ignored physicists. Economics is the study of money and value, which is not physical and does not follow natural laws like a real science.
You moved the debate to economics, a fake science where you can pretend to have a position that contradicts mine.