>>10980764>Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.Again, what facts do you have to back that up? Or are you saying it because it just makes sense?
Also, not all economists agree with you.
Almost nothing you say is objective and backed up by actual facts about nature, just arbitrary axioms that a bunch of intellectuals agree on. Unfortunately for you, that's not how science is done.
>inb4 scientific consensusBefore an idea gets to the scientific consensus, it goes through a long process of showing a good track record of hard data and replication (which is something that Economics specially lacks).
>And if the perceived value of a good or service did not match up to its "real" value, it would not stay that way for long because people would adjust their expectations.Debatable, as multiple companies remain on the markets despite not making any profits.
Not a fact.
>The idea of anything being "overpaid" is ludicrous since it is only you who considers it overpaying, the person who paid for it certainly didn't.Tell that to all the people who bought Snapchat stocks back on the IPO.
>The overwhelming majority of graduates in economics come out of university with no contacts.I'm talking about good economists. They don't suddenly have huge networks inside markets by virtue of them studying economics.
Yeah. That's what I literally said. The network economists build throughout their career has nothing to do with their degree and could be done with any other major
>they can end up working in a whole host of jobs that deal with problems of resource allocation efficiently. Amazon, for example, hires microeconomists to create their mathematical modelsWhich can be done better by any STEM graduate with proper training, since we are more scientific and proficient at math.
It's not that Economics is entirely useless, it's just that it's glorified mental masturbation and incorrectly labeled as a science.
