Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "the entire history of behavioral economics" video.

  1. HEY JUDO BOY: Engineer here, you know one of those ratbags who believe in reality!!! I just watched a whole video by you titled "Academia is BROKEN! - Harvard Fake Data Scandal Explained" And at 11:31 You mention Daniel Kahneman winning the Nobel prize in economics in 2002 and then blab on about it. Why DON'T you be HONSET and call it for what it is? There is NO SUCH THING as the Nobel Prize in Economics and NEVER WAS. There is this BULLSHlT prize that has the OFFICIAL title of "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." The Nobel family themselves have tried for decades to have their family name removed from it because they know that Alfred Nobel hated economists. This piece of crap and nonsense EVERYONE in your profession has used to PROJECT LEGITIMACY to the wider human society has brought ruin to so many lives and will continue to do so for many decades just because. I have had to start informally studying economics out of the frustration of having clowns waving economics degrees INTERFERING in things they don't understand LIKE ENERGY GRIDS. I actually do have time for some of your. People I refer to as "Rebel Economists" as in people prepared to go against the orthodoxy of (in particular) neoliberals which of we are using behavioral lingo would be best describe as a pack of greedy selfish stupid arrogant M0R0Ns who actually think they know how the modern world functions and have yet somehow manged to screw up so badly that it will take multiple generations to fix. I actually got some interesting information curtesy of Steve Keen who mentioned in an interview with a couple of British post-grads how classical and neo-classical economists don't include energy in the models. I'd guess in behavioral terms that could be described as ignorant crap. Mark Blyth pointed out a bank of England Report (Q1 2014) where they describe how money is created and what it actually is. Mark also likes to point out that despite writing that brilliant piece on money all the economist promptly forgot what it meant and proceeded to screw over the entire planet. I've sat through a Richard Wolff series on Marx, read Mark Blyth's Angrynomics, read parts of Stephanie Kelton's the Deficit Myth and have started reading Adam Smith's wealth of nations. I have also watched many of Mark Blyth's podcasts with people who have written books on various things. My conclusion is you have all made a very fundamental mistake. Everyone thinks wealth is generated through labor. Its isn't its created through WORK and as anyone who did a basic science class can tell you work is a function of USING ENERGY. You use energy to move and do various forms of work and with that generate wealth that can be measured using money that can then operate as "transferable debt" that can be stored or exchanged what others have worked for. I call this Engine Theory and its the explanation that all wealth is created NOT just through labor but anything that converts energy or fuel into to work that can be economically accounted for (measured) with money. You mentioned Ancient Egypt, one of my favorite examples. They had slaves fueled by food and they did work that generated wealth. They also had ox that pulled heavy loads like ploughs and wagons and that was work that generated wealth. They also had horses that pulled or carried light loads like chariots and people but they moved much faster than an Ox and that was work that generated wealth. They had boats with sails and they tapped the energy of the wind and carried things up and down the Nile and that was work that generated wealth. The mercantilists said wealth was created through trade (mercantile) while others said it was through the land. Then Smith and Marx argued it was through labor. Funny how none of them had energy in their models and they simply ignored that aspect industrial revolution. But then things like steam engines, tractors, harvesters and threshers are all engineering problems. Maybe this is why the economists have screwed up so badly with energy all over the developed world. Its not in their models because its an engineering problem. If you have ever wondered why engineers don't think much of economists NOW YOU KNOW. if you guys would start looking at how the world around you actually functions then maybe you would dump a whole pile of stuff in the "Too Hard Basket" because its an engineering problem. To not understand this basic principle of what work actually is, is pretty damning. To hand out a fake prize and parade your profession as if its a real science is worse.
    1