3 ms·
> This is entirely false, and there are stacks of economic literature spanning a 200 year timeframe and covering every economic ideology that have explored why
by imagist 10y ago
> This is entirely false, and there are stacks of economic literature spanning a 200 year timeframe and covering every economic ideology that have explored why it isn't like that, and surprise surprise there actually is a consensus.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
- saosebastiao 10y ago> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair Ah, so you're in the "reject science" camp. Gotcha.
- imagist 10y agoTo clarify for anyone who might be confused like saosebastiao about what I'm saying: the consensus saosebastiao is claiming exists is exactly what you would expect from economists who are trying to make money for themselves. It's additionally worth noting that a) there is not a consensus, and b) consensus is not part of the scientific method.
- saosebastiao 10y agoThere is a consensus, and in social sciences like economics, consensus absolutely matters because universal truths do not exist. And no, the incentives of academic economists are not aligned with industry like is claimed. If that were true, the majority of academic economists would not be Keynesian welfare-state supporting democrats like they currently are in the US.