Was your risk calculated or you're just bad at math?
Economists are so bad at math, and I can understand why.
Buckle up because at the end, economist may not be bad at math after all.
Mathematics as taught and studied is a science, but people are a creation of art, so if math being so rigid as to functioning on a set of rules, how then can it be leveraged as a system to define the actions of the masses?
Math should be a canvas for artistic and playful expressions, not a number system that is seemingly applied as a rigid rule set for all structures.
Not everything has to make sense, surely not every "X" has to be found
I mean, let's look at a couple of things in life for example.
Breathing, how calculated can we say this is?
Surely, the rigid number system tells us a person breathes in air approximately 8.4 million times in a year with an assumption of 16 breaths per minute as study suggests a 12 to 20x breaths is a take by a person while at rest.
Did I bore you with these numbers? Surely I should have had a sense of humor and simply said "the average man beast must breathe a hell lotta times in a year" but I had to let math do it's thing, or at least math as we have been taught.
Should we talk about how many times a person blinks in a day?
Surely I don't want to lose it, so I won't.
Economists ignore the other side of math.
The math of emotion, one where K is not a constant. You see, economist study and understand only the math of numbers governed by rigid rule sets, but math surely must go beyond that because these same economist seem to be actively working, making "calculated moves" but still fucking us over, why so bad at the math you solved so well?
The rigid number system doesn't define human emotions and cannot predict their respective product in time and space.
A human is a work of art and changes most times without a sign, this is the flexibility of not being subject to numbers because to start with, the ultimate variable that controls your existence has been falsely defined for years - time!
Oh wait, math says time is both a constant and a variable, how weird right?
Time can be both a variable and a constant in various contexts, depending on how it is used in a particular situation.
Time as a Variable
In physics, engineering, and many scientific disciplines, time is often treated as a variable. It can change, and its value depends on the specific circumstances. For example, in equations of motion, time (usually denoted as "t") is a variable because it represents the progression of time, and its values can vary.
Time as a Constant
In some mathematical models or scenarios, time can be treated as a constant. For instance, when simplifying or idealizing certain problems, time might be considered constant if the variations in time are negligible or not relevant to the analysis.
In non-mathematical terms we see:
In non-mathematical terms:
Time as a Variable
When we refer to time as a variable, we mean that it is like a flowing river, constantly changing. It's the measure of the progression of events, and its value can vary from one moment to the next. In this sense, time is flexible and adapts to different situations. For example, think of the time it takes for a tree to grow; it varies from tree to tree and moment to moment.
Time as a Constant
When we consider time as a constant, we treat it like an unwavering foundation, something that remains fixed and unchanging within a specific context. In this case, time is seen as a steady reference point against which other things are measured. For instance, when we say that a specific historical event happened in the past, we treat time as a constant because it provides a stable framework for understanding when things occurred.
Our friendly ChatGPT…
This breaks to us that of a surety, Economists have been largely misdefining and misrepresented data because variable effects of time and human emotions are never expanded extensively in any concepts for economic projections.
The establishment basis its projections on quantitative data which never tells the full story of economic trends.
Oh are there really that bad at maths? Just ignorant of the other side of math? Or…?
Reversed engineering events outcomes
There's this concept of reverse engineering that suggest that there's predictability in actions of humans when looking at the masses, this is because the actions of the individuals within a group of people often exhibits definitive patterns.
The problem with this statistical predictability is that the not largely stated or discussed discrepancy in data - which is the slight change in action of an individual that can alter the trend or pattern of the larger group is the only predictable factor.
Over and over again we watch the math go terribly wrong, because several emotional factors are ignored, but is this really an unfortunate effect of bad math or a deliberate play on human emotions to suck value out of the world into the pockets of the few?
Surely we all did take calculated steps, but dang it are we so bad at math!