Bro I’m completing a dissertation in political economy and I hate myself for it. The world is an easy place if you assume the gospel drivel spewed in orthodox econ departments is all there is. How about you go read up on the Cambridge Capital debate and then tell me how robust a “science” economics is. While you’re at it eat a crayon, maybe you’ll shit out a more intelligent comment next time.
I’m not talking about the inherent limitations of social science, I’m responding to your absurd attitude that somehow formal education makes your ideas inherently superior/above critique, and I named a specific example of theoretical failure of orthodox economics as an example of the entire project being basically woo. Lots of aristotelean scholastics wrote the dumbest shit imaginable about physics for a thousand years, and their thought was funded, reproduced, and taught as authoritative by formal education the entire time; progress was only made when criticism came from outside the academy and overcame it. Much like then, our contemporary “Political Science” and “Economics” departments are nearly completely captured by a dead-end ideology/research project, but still have the support of the ruling class so they keep cranking along misinforming more and more students every year. You claiming advanced understanding of the matter is the equivalent of an Aristotelean physicist or Lamarkian biologist sticking their nose up and saying learning outside of the academy is somehow less than their own. That’s worse than just being wrong, it’s wrong and using elitism to refuse to recognize it. The Black Panthers went into the poorest and least educated communities in America, and they taught people Marxist theory while they taught them to read. What do you think well to do Nixon Republicans had to say about their education? That’s where you stand right now looking down on folks engaging in education outside of the academy itself.
Also, lots of Marxists are tired of dumb liberals reciting the same garbage authoritatively while never questioning basic undercurrents of their own ideological world view. So sorry they have reached a conclusion and don’t want to rehash baby’s first socialism with every shmuck who thinks their poli-sci degree makes them an expert.
You’re still not getting it lol. Neoclassical economics is theoretically standing out way over a cliff and simply refusing to look down like Wiley coyote. Your appeal to mathematics is unintentionally hilarious, because it was physics envy and the chasing of mathematical models over real life evidence/coherent theory that led the field astray to begin with lmao. You can come up with all kinds of fancy models and as much mathematics as you like, but none of it matters if you’re basing it on incorrect axioms.
“Functioning in the real world” - oh yeah for sure. Burning the environment down and cooking the biosphere while forever chemicals and microplastics permanently saturate the ecosystem. Liberal societies are “Functioning” in so far as they’re not actively failed states this very moment, but that is accomplished on the back of neo-imperialism, unequal exchange with the global south, and unresolvable contradictions inherent to neo-liberalism/capitalism. A car driving 80 mph towards a cliff is working, sure, but is that a desirable state of affairs?
Also take a quick look around my guy. We’re not in a laboratory. I’m calling you an idiot on the internet. Not every conversation is the platonic ideal of scientific pursuit you nerd.
Hear that @Civility@hexbear.net? I’ve been a bad boy! Come frown at me for hurting the widdle wiberals feelings. He was just using elitism to disparage his interlocutors and maintain a worldview that harms people every day! Why did I have to go and be so uncivil! Whoa is me.
Classic liberal. When confronted with arguments you don’t understand or have a retort to, you pearl clutch and complain about tone.
Idk, if it was so plainly “false” and “uneducated” then it seems like it shouldn’t be that hard to provide a refutation of, especially since these are criticisms that even several liberal economists have been making for decades, e.g. “assume a can-opener” discourse.
And he is talking about axioms, so you don’t even need to worry about correctly notating your fancylad mathematics.
I will have you know that I majored in political science and have a minor in economics. I have achieved the apex of knowledge on both subjects, thank you very much.
Nah, Libs are like this everywhere. The self righteousness, the aggressive ignorance, the near absolutely inability to recognize their own limitations, the incuriousness. I think it’s mostly a consequence of living in a hegemonic cultural and media environment where they never encounter any meaningful challenges to their world view. Liberalism is all they know, and the only thing outside of it that they even casually encounter is fascism through the lens of Lib media venues, so they’re just completely unprepared to critique their own beliefs or situation.
Why are you presuming liberals are dumb? Liberal societies are functioning in the real world while the most successful attempts at socialism are those that moved towards hybrid economies (Vietnam and China).
The case of Vietnam and China is well-explained in Chinese Marxist economic study and experience (not that you would know this), as Primary Stage Socialism. To explain this, it’s necessary to look at the history of these two countries. Before Vietnam emerged under modern socialist-orientation it was being pillaged by French then Japanese then French (again) colonialism; the French were overthrown by the Vietnamese, with France receiving support for some time from America until the U.S. decided they wanted the territory for themselves, where they bombed the country emerging just out of colonialism into oblivion, killing 1M+ for their resources until they were forced out, then employing sanctions and IMF pressure afterwards. This is clearly not an orthodox path of economic development and not conducive to a balanced test of economic competition that you’re implying. You of course know of China’s underdevelopment under semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism prior to socialist-orientation (with U.S. support for the KMT as the communists won the civil war).
Now I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, but the Marxist analysis isn’t “state ownership is good at all times and private ownership is bad at all times”; first there’s the question of class orientation of the state, tearing apart this ridiculous “mixed economy” nonsense, which is really just a method of obscuring this fact and simplifying economics into a ratio of (private/”public”, with both metrics gaining new context under different orientations of the class dictatorship, especially the latter). You cannot simply fully nationalize a drastically underdeveloped economy (nor is this the traditional socialist/Marxist prescription, with Engels stating for instance in Principles of Communism, “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”
Scientific socialism is specifically the approach that states that different scales of production demand different and mirrored relations of production which then determine the social relations of that society. Separate forms and scales of production demand the supremacy of separate emerging and progressive classes (just as feudalism nurtured and birthed the early bourgeoise to overthrow it, so that same bourgeoisie will eventually nurture its own successor, the proletariat, by virtue of the socialization of production and the decay of the capitalist mode of production). Primary Stage Socialism is specifically a new concept created by Deng Xiaoping to flesh out an understanding of the development of socialism on an underdeveloped platform. The basic explanation is that in developed countries there will be large-scale capitalist production, then revolution, then advanced socialism, whereas in artificially underdeveloped countries there will be revolution, then the development of large-scale capitalist production, then advanced socialism. The common enemy of imperialism nullifies the singular revolutionary character of the national bourgeoisie and, with the masses gaining new understanding from this experience, the dictatorship of the proletariat (typically headed by the proletariat with a mass base of the peasantry, as in China’s PDD). The objective under this new governance is to “modernize” the forces of production (by utilizing foreign investment, the patriotic national bourgeoisie, and market relations) so that they may correspond to this progressive class leadership and under this progressive class leadership as well as build the framework for socialist relations of production (directly state owned economy is still dominant in China). This isn’t some smashing rebuttal of socialism, nor is this “total/vs. mixed economy” nonsense anything other than a false dichotomy. These nations assumed this theory and practice because it is the correct approach (and not in the revisionist sense of abandoning Marxism-Leninism), and this notion of failure of socialism is a complete misunderstanding.
As for liberalism, it works for the bourgeoisie, is the ultimate ideology of the bourgeoisie undercutting all obstacles of outdated social (and economic thought to an extent) thought that hinders the bourgeoisie while uplifting this group and maintaining their select privileges. The vast majority of those ascribing to “liberalism” as an ideology do not belong to the select privileged group for which the ideology is oriented, and are defending demonstrably incorrect incorrect ideas with relation to the “second” and third world and upholding the pretexts of the dominant class not as a matter of sly infiltration but genuine mistaken belief (and the person you were replying to never stated that all people who uphold liberalism are genuinely confused or dumb, but that they had been arguing with those who are (talking incorrectly and against their ultimate interests). The misnomer of liberal societies “functioning” lies in the fact that “functioning” is seen as a blind metric (success/failure) rather than a relative idea (with certain modes functioning for certain groups, usually for those by which they were designed and carried out). China has been growing at a much faster rate than “liberal societies”, and is doing so without engaging in imperialism and massacring millions of people for regional influence and natural resources. Your entire critique is useless.
Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.
OP is talking about how FDR was the first president to be elected for three terms, which is the same situation for Xi. Are you confusing the PRC and DPRK?
I wrote something on the DPRK’s elections a while ago [link]—the “hereditary” (of which positions are diffused, with the SAC being a modern development of decentralization) succession is a product of extreme hardship from being bombed to shit and starved and occupied by the U.S, and deciding upon candidates that are seen as “successors” to the pioneer of the country/visage who defeated the imperialists; whether or not this is correct in your eyes means nothing.
I know that you misunderstood the comment on liberalism (which I corrected), I know that your understanding of “socialism vs. mixed economy” is fundamentally nonsense, of course you didn’t bother to respond to any of this.
To respond to this new comment, China is under PSS, which means that the incorrect policy of over-nationalization was corrected and the country was opened up; prior to the centennial goal of developed socialism (2049/2050, precursor to communism), the purpose of state planning is to expand the productive forces to prepare for the elimination of private property. This is where you find a path seemingly “away from” socialism, but its purpose is specifically complex and not observable as such. I’m unsure how you ascertained this trend, and since you provide no examples, there’s nothing to respond to. Read this thoroughly sourced essay (and this as well) on China’s economy disproving your assertion, if you have any specific grievances not addressed then list them and I can respond.
As for “authoritarianism”, the National People’s Congress (which elects the president) is composed of delegates elected by the people. Xi could hold office for a long time, but his terms are five years long after which the president is elected again (and the NPC can depose him at any time by popular vote in the case of emergency). What you’re referring to is a decision by the NPC to remove term limits (whose purpose in this case is only undemocratic and limiting of the people’s will), so that a president could extend beyond the prior decided two-term limit if voted for a third (which in the first place is only a decision to correct the discrepancy between CPC gensec and president). Is this authoritarianism? As for “dictatorial state” (your only evidence is not indicative of this), the central government and CPC have majority support according to Harvard with lower majority support as well in local governments because of infrastructure and public enrichment programs. The CPC comprises of 10% of the eligible population and is a mass party which is not run for “privately profit [sic]” here’s another article on the class character of the people’s gov..
He’s pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It’s incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can’t be safe for the human body.
I STILL WANT MY MAN’S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.
"It is important, for the record, to recognize that key participants in the debate openly admitted their mistakes. Samuelson’s seventh edition of Economics was purged of errors. Levhari and Samuelson published a paper which began, ‘We wish to make it clear for the record that the nonreswitching theorem associated with us is definitely false. We are grateful to Dr. Pasinetti…’ (Levhari and Samuelson 1966). Leland Yeager and I jointly published a note acknowledging his earlier error and attempting to resolve the conflict between our theoretical perspectives. (Burmeister and Yeager, 1978).
However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, ‘declared victory’: Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss ‘capital’ as if it were a well-defined concept — which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the ‘rational expectations revolution’ and in virtually all econometric work."
(Burmeister 2000)
Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree
For all of their bluster about “starting from a conclusion and working backwards” it’s hilarious watching them start at the beginning with the conclusion that they know better than everyone else (with literally only an undergraduate politics and econ minor as proof) and never deviating or questioning that premise for a single moment throughout this entire thread with zero irony.
There could not be a flimsier conclusion for someone to work backwards from. They are a happy puppy arrogantly discarding everything they encounter (and I really do mean everything) with complete confidence they are the biggest dog in the yard.
I’m a biologist, but my college offered a few humanities courses, so I took an introductory course in economics.
The maths was fine; it was mostly linear equations and differentiation. But the priors seemed to defy all logic and common sense. It was like a physicist assuming that there was no friction. The impression I got was that economists put too much effort into mathematical rigour and too little into empirical verification.
Now there are biologists who study animal societies and their ‘economic systems’. But they care more for experiments than for theory, and this seems to me to be the more reasonable approach.
Bro I’m completing a dissertation in political economy and I hate myself for it. The world is an easy place if you assume the gospel drivel spewed in orthodox econ departments is all there is. How about you go read up on the Cambridge Capital debate and then tell me how robust a “science” economics is. While you’re at it eat a crayon, maybe you’ll shit out a more intelligent comment next time.
deleted by creator
I’m not talking about the inherent limitations of social science, I’m responding to your absurd attitude that somehow formal education makes your ideas inherently superior/above critique, and I named a specific example of theoretical failure of orthodox economics as an example of the entire project being basically woo. Lots of aristotelean scholastics wrote the dumbest shit imaginable about physics for a thousand years, and their thought was funded, reproduced, and taught as authoritative by formal education the entire time; progress was only made when criticism came from outside the academy and overcame it. Much like then, our contemporary “Political Science” and “Economics” departments are nearly completely captured by a dead-end ideology/research project, but still have the support of the ruling class so they keep cranking along misinforming more and more students every year. You claiming advanced understanding of the matter is the equivalent of an Aristotelean physicist or Lamarkian biologist sticking their nose up and saying learning outside of the academy is somehow less than their own. That’s worse than just being wrong, it’s wrong and using elitism to refuse to recognize it. The Black Panthers went into the poorest and least educated communities in America, and they taught people Marxist theory while they taught them to read. What do you think well to do Nixon Republicans had to say about their education? That’s where you stand right now looking down on folks engaging in education outside of the academy itself.
Also, lots of Marxists are tired of dumb liberals reciting the same garbage authoritatively while never questioning basic undercurrents of their own ideological world view. So sorry they have reached a conclusion and don’t want to rehash baby’s first socialism with every shmuck who thinks their poli-sci degree makes them an expert.
deleted by creator
You’re still not getting it lol. Neoclassical economics is theoretically standing out way over a cliff and simply refusing to look down like Wiley coyote. Your appeal to mathematics is unintentionally hilarious, because it was physics envy and the chasing of mathematical models over real life evidence/coherent theory that led the field astray to begin with lmao. You can come up with all kinds of fancy models and as much mathematics as you like, but none of it matters if you’re basing it on incorrect axioms.
“Functioning in the real world” - oh yeah for sure. Burning the environment down and cooking the biosphere while forever chemicals and microplastics permanently saturate the ecosystem. Liberal societies are “Functioning” in so far as they’re not actively failed states this very moment, but that is accomplished on the back of neo-imperialism, unequal exchange with the global south, and unresolvable contradictions inherent to neo-liberalism/capitalism. A car driving 80 mph towards a cliff is working, sure, but is that a desirable state of affairs?
Also take a quick look around my guy. We’re not in a laboratory. I’m calling you an idiot on the internet. Not every conversation is the platonic ideal of scientific pursuit you nerd.
deleted by creator
Hear that @Civility@hexbear.net? I’ve been a bad boy! Come frown at me for hurting the widdle wiberals feelings. He was just using elitism to disparage his interlocutors and maintain a worldview that harms people every day! Why did I have to go and be so uncivil! Whoa is me.
Classic liberal. When confronted with arguments you don’t understand or have a retort to, you pearl clutch and complain about tone.
Idk, if it was so plainly “false” and “uneducated” then it seems like it shouldn’t be that hard to provide a refutation of, especially since these are criticisms that even several liberal economists have been making for decades, e.g. “assume a can-opener” discourse.
And he is talking about axioms, so you don’t even need to worry about correctly notating your fancylad mathematics.
😤
I don’ t know if I’ve told you this before, but I love this bit. Your commitment is unparalleled.
❤️
They literally have more formal education than you
I will have you know that I majored in political science and have a minor in economics. I have achieved the apex of knowledge on both subjects, thank you very much.
Come the fuck on, this has to be a bit. You can’t be real you fucking dork.
Nah, Libs are like this everywhere. The self righteousness, the aggressive ignorance, the near absolutely inability to recognize their own limitations, the incuriousness. I think it’s mostly a consequence of living in a hegemonic cultural and media environment where they never encounter any meaningful challenges to their world view. Liberalism is all they know, and the only thing outside of it that they even casually encounter is fascism through the lens of Lib media venues, so they’re just completely unprepared to critique their own beliefs or situation.
The case of Vietnam and China is well-explained in Chinese Marxist economic study and experience (not that you would know this), as Primary Stage Socialism. To explain this, it’s necessary to look at the history of these two countries. Before Vietnam emerged under modern socialist-orientation it was being pillaged by French then Japanese then French (again) colonialism; the French were overthrown by the Vietnamese, with France receiving support for some time from America until the U.S. decided they wanted the territory for themselves, where they bombed the country emerging just out of colonialism into oblivion, killing 1M+ for their resources until they were forced out, then employing sanctions and IMF pressure afterwards. This is clearly not an orthodox path of economic development and not conducive to a balanced test of economic competition that you’re implying. You of course know of China’s underdevelopment under semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism prior to socialist-orientation (with U.S. support for the KMT as the communists won the civil war).
Now I didn’t think I’d have to explain this, but the Marxist analysis isn’t “state ownership is good at all times and private ownership is bad at all times”; first there’s the question of class orientation of the state, tearing apart this ridiculous “mixed economy” nonsense, which is really just a method of obscuring this fact and simplifying economics into a ratio of (private/”public”, with both metrics gaining new context under different orientations of the class dictatorship, especially the latter). You cannot simply fully nationalize a drastically underdeveloped economy (nor is this the traditional socialist/Marxist prescription, with Engels stating for instance in Principles of Communism, “Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”
Scientific socialism is specifically the approach that states that different scales of production demand different and mirrored relations of production which then determine the social relations of that society. Separate forms and scales of production demand the supremacy of separate emerging and progressive classes (just as feudalism nurtured and birthed the early bourgeoise to overthrow it, so that same bourgeoisie will eventually nurture its own successor, the proletariat, by virtue of the socialization of production and the decay of the capitalist mode of production). Primary Stage Socialism is specifically a new concept created by Deng Xiaoping to flesh out an understanding of the development of socialism on an underdeveloped platform. The basic explanation is that in developed countries there will be large-scale capitalist production, then revolution, then advanced socialism, whereas in artificially underdeveloped countries there will be revolution, then the development of large-scale capitalist production, then advanced socialism. The common enemy of imperialism nullifies the singular revolutionary character of the national bourgeoisie and, with the masses gaining new understanding from this experience, the dictatorship of the proletariat (typically headed by the proletariat with a mass base of the peasantry, as in China’s PDD). The objective under this new governance is to “modernize” the forces of production (by utilizing foreign investment, the patriotic national bourgeoisie, and market relations) so that they may correspond to this progressive class leadership and under this progressive class leadership as well as build the framework for socialist relations of production (directly state owned economy is still dominant in China). This isn’t some smashing rebuttal of socialism, nor is this “total/vs. mixed economy” nonsense anything other than a false dichotomy. These nations assumed this theory and practice because it is the correct approach (and not in the revisionist sense of abandoning Marxism-Leninism), and this notion of failure of socialism is a complete misunderstanding.
As for liberalism, it works for the bourgeoisie, is the ultimate ideology of the bourgeoisie undercutting all obstacles of outdated social (and economic thought to an extent) thought that hinders the bourgeoisie while uplifting this group and maintaining their select privileges. The vast majority of those ascribing to “liberalism” as an ideology do not belong to the select privileged group for which the ideology is oriented, and are defending demonstrably incorrect incorrect ideas with relation to the “second” and third world and upholding the pretexts of the dominant class not as a matter of sly infiltration but genuine mistaken belief (and the person you were replying to never stated that all people who uphold liberalism are genuinely confused or dumb, but that they had been arguing with those who are (talking incorrectly and against their ultimate interests). The misnomer of liberal societies “functioning” lies in the fact that “functioning” is seen as a blind metric (success/failure) rather than a relative idea (with certain modes functioning for certain groups, usually for those by which they were designed and carried out). China has been growing at a much faster rate than “liberal societies”, and is doing so without engaging in imperialism and massacring millions of people for regional influence and natural resources. Your entire critique is useless.
Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You probably think FDR was a dictator for winning a third and fourth election too.
deleted by creator
OP is talking about how FDR was the first president to be elected for three terms, which is the same situation for Xi. Are you confusing the PRC and DPRK?
I wrote something on the DPRK’s elections a while ago [link]—the “hereditary” (of which positions are diffused, with the SAC being a modern development of decentralization) succession is a product of extreme hardship from being bombed to shit and starved and occupied by the U.S, and deciding upon candidates that are seen as “successors” to the pioneer of the country/visage who defeated the imperialists; whether or not this is correct in your eyes means nothing.
There really isn’t any democratic argument for term limits.
“Oh but it will consolidate power”
Do you think the voters are too uneducated to factor that into their voting patterns?
“You can’t trust the masses like that!”
Sounds kinda anti-democratic doesn’t it.
I know that you misunderstood the comment on liberalism (which I corrected), I know that your understanding of “socialism vs. mixed economy” is fundamentally nonsense, of course you didn’t bother to respond to any of this.
To respond to this new comment, China is under PSS, which means that the incorrect policy of over-nationalization was corrected and the country was opened up; prior to the centennial goal of developed socialism (2049/2050, precursor to communism), the purpose of state planning is to expand the productive forces to prepare for the elimination of private property. This is where you find a path seemingly “away from” socialism, but its purpose is specifically complex and not observable as such. I’m unsure how you ascertained this trend, and since you provide no examples, there’s nothing to respond to. Read this thoroughly sourced essay (and this as well) on China’s economy disproving your assertion, if you have any specific grievances not addressed then list them and I can respond.
As for “authoritarianism”, the National People’s Congress (which elects the president) is composed of delegates elected by the people. Xi could hold office for a long time, but his terms are five years long after which the president is elected again (and the NPC can depose him at any time by popular vote in the case of emergency). What you’re referring to is a decision by the NPC to remove term limits (whose purpose in this case is only undemocratic and limiting of the people’s will), so that a president could extend beyond the prior decided two-term limit if voted for a third (which in the first place is only a decision to correct the discrepancy between CPC gensec and president). Is this authoritarianism? As for “dictatorial state” (your only evidence is not indicative of this), the central government and CPC have majority support according to Harvard with lower majority support as well in local governments because of infrastructure and public enrichment programs. The CPC comprises of 10% of the eligible population and is a mass party which is not run for “privately profit [sic]” here’s another article on the class character of the people’s gov..
There are several incredible replies to you in this thread that have completely gone unappreciated or over your head or both.
deleted by creator
Neither what
He’s pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It’s incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can’t be safe for the human body.
I STILL WANT MY MAN’S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.
(Burmeister 2000)
Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree
For all of their bluster about “starting from a conclusion and working backwards” it’s hilarious watching them start at the beginning with the conclusion that they know better than everyone else (with literally only an undergraduate politics and econ minor as proof) and never deviating or questioning that premise for a single moment throughout this entire thread with zero irony.
There could not be a flimsier conclusion for someone to work backwards from. They are a happy puppy arrogantly discarding everything they encounter (and I really do mean everything) with complete confidence they are the biggest dog in the yard.
I’m a biologist, but my college offered a few humanities courses, so I took an introductory course in economics.
The maths was fine; it was mostly linear equations and differentiation. But the priors seemed to defy all logic and common sense. It was like a physicist assuming that there was no friction. The impression I got was that economists put too much effort into mathematical rigour and too little into empirical verification.
Now there are biologists who study animal societies and their ‘economic systems’. But they care more for experiments than for theory, and this seems to me to be the more reasonable approach.
Waver and flounder and try to browbeat, why not drop your monocle into your glass while you’re at it. You got nothing