Yeah yeah yeah, but literally zero people in econ can do the basic derivation of compound interest. Its like, "how did this get here"? Oh, i just use this formula in excel.
Then in the same breadth they talk about asset pricing by drawing two diagonal lines, when all the model shit is like non-closed-form pde's that only have approximations.
Agree. If you do math, the compounding interest formula is an easy derivation. But most econ degrees have like "business math" and nothing beyond algebra. But they learn to solved "complex" problems like this:
If you have 6 workers, and each worker earns $10/hr and can produced two widgets an hour and your product sells for $12, what is the total surplus value extracted from your labor force?
See, this is where Econ nerds get all tripped up. Business Bros know that you tell them their IBS "isn't a real disease" and track their time in the shitter, then don't pay them and fire them. Mathematically, very few of them will sue you, so you come out ahead every time.
Americans realized that the more calculus requierments a course had the harder it was for students to pass it. So a while ago they purged calculus requierments from a lot of econ an phisics courses. Im not american but i used to hoard textbooks in pdf and american college level ones practically have no calculus in them.
The best part about econ is that when there is math, it's presented as being this mysteries black box that just outputs values.
:geordi-no: Exponential compounding interest formula
:geordi-yes: "Future value of money"
Exponential compound interest at least is a real thing. They hold put it as a problem to derive it in the first or second month of calculus 2.
Now some of the production functions those are often a black box.
In almost anything with a fenomenological coeficient, that coeficient is doing a lot of work .
Yeah yeah yeah, but literally zero people in econ can do the basic derivation of compound interest. Its like, "how did this get here"? Oh, i just use this formula in excel.
Then in the same breadth they talk about asset pricing by drawing two diagonal lines, when all the model shit is like non-closed-form pde's that only have approximations.
idk how much you are exaggerating, but as far as calculus goes that's pretty easy (no shade on comrades who are bad at maths).
Agree. If you do math, the compounding interest formula is an easy derivation. But most econ degrees have like "business math" and nothing beyond algebra. But they learn to solved "complex" problems like this:
Answer: $84/hr
See, this is where Econ nerds get all tripped up. Business Bros know that you tell them their IBS "isn't a real disease" and track their time in the shitter, then don't pay them and fire them. Mathematically, very few of them will sue you, so you come out ahead every time.
Lmao. "Mathematically". Do they even think about it probablistically, or is daddy enough of a scum fuck that failchild just thinks they're invincible?
Econ is the "formal" study of exploitation. Business Bros is the implementation. Theory vs. practice.
The #1 thing somebody learns in MBA school is that it's always better to break the law when the fine is less than the benefit. That's algebra 1 baby!
Americans realized that the more calculus requierments a course had the harder it was for students to pass it. So a while ago they purged calculus requierments from a lot of econ an phisics courses. Im not american but i used to hoard textbooks in pdf and american college level ones practically have no calculus in them.
Correct. There is no math in a business/econ degree.
At most colleges/universities, if you have calc 1, you can take any econ class you want as a "skip-ahead" prerequisite.
Fair enough. Worse is tyhat often those lines are suposedly concave or convex acording to the model but are straigth in the diagram.
We learned the bert formula in 8th grade lol.
You gonna tell me you learned to read too?
I would never