#Occupy Wall Street

[firstoccupier]

Why the protest?

It is, in the end, an individual choice. While I can state the goal of the Occupation when it stepped off back on September 17, 2011, I cannot speak for every individual who has marched, chanted, held their ground at one location or another, or has taken abuse from police. I can only speak for myself. I have written much about the hypocrisy in the United States. My fight goes back to the days of…

[american-tyger]

ᴏᴄᴄᴜᴘʏ ᴡᴀʟʟ sᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ poster created by Will Brown for 𝘼𝙙𝙗𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨, 2011.

[spokenforinvaliduser]

[politicsyeswestan]

I was alive for Occupy Wall Street. Anyone up for Occupy 2.0 now that health care has become a rallying cry?

[2mo3cm-man]

[sergeant-macho-nacho]

[firstoccupier]

Historical Citizen Actions Against Oligarchy: A Comprehensive Overview

Long VersionBy Just Another Friendly Occupier 8 minutes Introduction The term “oligarchy” refers to a system of governance where a small group wields disproportionate power and influence over societal decisions. As contemporary figures like Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, and Robert Reich raise alarms about the U.S. evolving into an oligarchic state, it becomes essential to explore historical…

[sergeant-macho-nacho]

In case you were confused about why the Supreme Court made Camping illegal.

[theinternetarchive]

from the occupy wall street flickr archives, 2011.

[alpaca-clouds]

Economics is not a Science

Before I forget about it, after talking about science stuff this week, let me make me one thing clear: Economics is not science. No, it does not matter that there is a nobel price in economics. Sociology is a science, so are some of the other humanities. Economics? No, economics is not a science. And my first master's degree is in economics, so yeah, I knwo what I am talking about.

I had to think about it, because last week I saw this really bad take on twitter:

And I was like: "Well, yes, becuase epidemiologists and climate scientists are scientists who know what they are doing. Economics are a bunch of idiots, who act as if they understand anything, but don't, which is why they rarely foresee economic downturns."

See, what makes a scientist is, that generally they put forward a theory, then do experiments of some sort, and then analyze whether those experiments support their theory.

Economics do not do that. They put forward theories, sure, but they do not really do any experiments. Which is kinda obvious, because they cannot do experiments, given there is more or less only one world economy.

But it is part of the issue: Economists do not have a bloody idea how the economy is working. Barely any economists forsaw 2008. And way too many economists still believe in trickle-down-economics, which we have tried (thanks Reagan) and have learned that it does not work AT ALL.

Heck, speaking of science: There is actually science about this, and on how bad economists are at predicting what the market does. It is like the one valuable thing I learned during my master's degree - ironically from the professor I liked the least. Basically there had been studies done on economists, to see how good they were in understanding and predicting what would happen on the market. And they found out that generally economists are all very bad at it - though female economists are a bit better for simple reasons. Male economists tend to act as if they have everything figured out and make those big claims, while female economists in those studies didn't. They kept their claims smaller scale, both in terms of time, and in terms of what they supposed as going to happen.

But the fact remains: It is just guesswork.

Said professor had also had a very good explanation for why it is not a science or anything like that: "To assume that we can predict the economy is to assume that the acteurs on the market behave rationally. But we know that they don't. Any attempt to pretent otherwise is just that: Pretention."

So yeah. At best economists are philosophers who philosophe about money.