this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
766 points (98.2% liked)

Science Memes

16512 readers
2738 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

As an econ major with a BS, please don't lump me in with the econ majors who went to business school for a MBA. I like cool math, not venture capitalism cancer.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The only thing funny about the Laffer curve is how little it now matters.

It was used to justify Reagnomics, which then immediately proved we weren't nearly as high on the Laffer curve as we assumed. Because of this, we have concrete evidence that lowering taxes on the rich doesn't increase government revenues.

Yet we're still doing that 50 years later. Despite the only vaguely scientific thing behind it proving it doesn't work decades ago.

Imagine being in a catholic family, reading the Bible, and always walking away thinking that Judas did the right thing (despite everything else the Bible says). That's US economic policy for the last 50 years.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

My favorite paper published last year includes the following, now scientifically proven statements:

The preponderance of the evidence shows that rising income inequality slows economic growth [3], [4], [5], [6]. Recent analyses have shown that once one controls for wealth inequality the negative effect of income inequality on economic growth falls away as statistically insignificant, and that it has in fact been wealth inequality that has been detrimental to growth either in an inverse linear form or in the form of an inverse u-shape À la Kuznets [7], [8], [9], [10].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003801212400003X

So economically speaking, Econ math just proved that we need to eat the rich in order to improve anything.

From the same paper above:

From a policy perspective, the ongoing increase in the concentration of wealth is one of the main socio-economic failures of our time [1]. Not only is it likely to depress economic growth in some countries, as we measure here, it has fueled social unrest, political polarization, and populist nationalism.... redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor may well be growth-enhancing in most countries

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Wdy think of Gary's Economics?

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm a fan :) Not many multi-millionaires are out there making YouTube videos about wealth concentration being bad. But he is. And he's very well spoken, highly intelligent, and knows what he's talking about (at least 99% of the time). It's refreshing to say the least. Here's hoping he keeps gaining traction and a wider audience🤞 If anyone can get people to understand how to fix our system, it's him.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 2 points 2 days ago

I am glad. I thought he passed the sniff test.

[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago

When your econ program is in a business college, they push the MBA hardcore. So glad I never entertained that.