3 ms·
The discussion of Becker reinforces my belief that the discipline of Economics exists primarily to justify pre existing power structures by using assumptions wh
by forkandwait 10y ago
The discussion of Becker reinforces my belief that the discipline of Economics exists primarily to justify pre existing power structures by using assumptions which are convenient but empirically unfounded.
- dismal2 10y agoalso, it conveniently explains/justifies PAST events but is useless for predict the future
- maxxxxx 10y agoYou are onto something here
- dv_dt 10y agoSo Economics might fit the definition of a modern mythology because the theories are stories told to explain the order of the world. (and because economics is so difficult to tie to real world, controlled experiments...)
- enoch_r 10y agoA paper by two economists finds evidence that intergenerational wealth effects have persisted over very long periods of time. They note that their results are "new and remarkable" in the context of a large existing body of empirical work studying and estimating historical intergenerational mobility. If the above reinforces your belief that "economics exists primarily to justify pre existing power structures by using assumptions which are convenient but empirically unfounded," then what exactly would weaken your position?
- antisthenes 10y ago> the discipline of Economics exists primarily to justify pre existing power structures by using assumptions which are convenient but empirically unfounded. If you think that's what Economics does, you either have not studied it, or somehow studied it under a unique professor in a unique environment, isolated from reality. Not to mention that your statement makes no sense at all, since if the power structures are already existing, then by definition, they are empirically founded.