[–] CanIHazPhD ago
Your example makes no sense, it's predicated on less profitable companies bidding on equal grounds for resources with more profitable companies. and you think economics is pure math instead of social science...
I realized you were off in your understanding, but didn't realize you were this far gone.
You have one example of (very very low) deflation not fucking up a country and hundreds of examples of deflation fucking upe economies and you hold to it screaming "muh counterexample".
Economics (and all sciences) are based first and foremost on observations. Said observations show that in most cases deflation is worse than inflation. You have one example where that didn't hold, and I already explained why it happened and why it can't happen again.
[–] ForTheUltimate ago (edited ago)
Since you can't learn past your level.
Perhahps you can atleast explain why
'' economy based on natural resource exploitation, which is already a thing of the past. It was basically people picking the low hanging fruit, which was plentiful and widespread (agriculture in new lands, cash crops, logging, minerals, oil, etc.), that can't be done again.''
Why that is.
A single counter example disproves your theory. All your other examples do not disprove my theory.
All the good progress in economics tha tI know of was made through logic, not observation. You would be a fool to try empiricism in a science where you cannot run controlled experiments on the scale of your theories. Only a delusional would place empiricism ahead of rationalism.
[–] CanIHazPhD ago
It's funny that you accuse me of no being able to learn past my level while not realizing why a natural resource based growth in the economy can't be repeated. Are you daft? Don't you realize that there are, for example, shallow oil reservoirs, higher yield mineral deposits, ancient forests, etc.? Don't you realize that you require much less energy and technology to extract those resources, and when you do you can't do it again?
And no, one counterexample does not disprove my theory, that's as stupid as saying that a bird disproves gravity. In the same way aerodynamics explain birds flying against gravity, abundance of natural resources explain the staving off of the pernicious effects of deflation.
And for the third point, you got it completely backwards, only a delusional would favor theory over empiricism in a field when you can't possibly model even the most shallow of complexities, where even the most advanced models are ridiculously simplified. Where most interactions are so complex they have to be neglected. Empiricism is the way to go in economics, not theory.