6 ms·

Most of economics is an intellectual veneer to justify politically motivated policy actions. This is the most poignant statement about "economics" as I've ever

Most of economics is an intellectual veneer to justify politically motivated policy actions. This is the most poignant statement about "economics" as I've ever read. It's entirely too accurate.

saosebastiao 10y ago
It's quite possibly the least poignant and lowest-common-denominator populist cliche I've ever read. It's like describing Computer Science as the study of how to make Flappy Bird clones and To Do apps.
- rhizome 10y ago
  It's like describing Computer Science as the study of how to make Flappy Bird clones and To Do apps. In practice? It's a little bit true. How many CS grads work at companies roughly in the sectors you mention? How many want to?
  - rifung 10y ago
    > How many CS grads work at companies roughly in the sectors you mention? What a field is or is not about is not determined by what graduates of said field do or want to do post graduation.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      so what determines what a field is, or is not, about if we cannot consider what the practicioners of that field do in their professional lives?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        They are not practitioners of the field, they're just people who happen to have a degree in that field. One of my coworkers has a degree in chemistry, yet she works in accounting, does that mean that the field of chemistry is defined by accounting? Yes, SW development is closer to CS, but it's still a separate endeavor.
        metaphorm 10y ago
        if you friend worked in pharmaceuticals development you'd have a better analogy. theory and application BOTH define the field. it's an unfortunate tendency in academia to claim that _only_ the research/theory part is the field.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      I didn't claim an iron law of meaning, I said it's "a little bit true." It was my attempt at making a nuanced, if short, observation.
- myowncrapulence 10y ago
  Tell me more about the justification for arbitrarily low interest-rates for banks at an all-time market high. Tell me more about how helicopter money QE is justified being put into circulation when wages are stagnant. You obviously are an economist who has an extreme biased.
  - saosebastiao 10y ago
    Macroeconomics represents less than 20% of the practitioners of economics as a profession. Of those macroeconomists, maybe 5% actively involve themselves in business cycle theory, and only a fraction of those would fall into the monetarist theory camp which would advocate for such interventions. So even your absolutely idiotic straw man argument concerns at most a fraction of 1% of the practitioners of economics. And no, I'm not an economist with "an extremely biased [sic]". I'm a supply chain engineer that has directly worked with dozens of economists for approximately 3 years, incorporated dozens of their econometric models into supply chain decision systems, and have never once have discussed anything political with them. And I just witnessed a clueless bullshitter malign the field of study that they have dedicated their lives to with an argument that could be considered libel at its most forgiving interpretation, and decided to call that clueless bullshitter out on it.

Most of economics is an intellectual veneer to justify politically motivated policy actions. This is the most poignant statement about "economics" as I've ever read. It's entirely too accurate.

saosebastiao 10y ago

It's quite possibly the least poignant and lowest-common-denominator populist cliche I've ever read. It's like describing Computer Science as the study of how to make Flappy Bird clones and To Do apps.

rhizome 10y ago
It's like describing Computer Science as the study of how to make Flappy Bird clones and To Do apps. In practice? It's a little bit true. How many CS grads work at companies roughly in the sectors you mention? How many want to?
- rifung 10y ago
  > How many CS grads work at companies roughly in the sectors you mention? What a field is or is not about is not determined by what graduates of said field do or want to do post graduation.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    so what determines what a field is, or is not, about if we cannot consider what the practicioners of that field do in their professional lives?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      They are not practitioners of the field, they're just people who happen to have a degree in that field. One of my coworkers has a degree in chemistry, yet she works in accounting, does that mean that the field of chemistry is defined by accounting? Yes, SW development is closer to CS, but it's still a separate endeavor.
      - metaphorm 10y ago
        if you friend worked in pharmaceuticals development you'd have a better analogy. theory and application BOTH define the field. it's an unfortunate tendency in academia to claim that _only_ the research/theory part is the field.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    I didn't claim an iron law of meaning, I said it's "a little bit true." It was my attempt at making a nuanced, if short, observation.
myowncrapulence 10y ago
Tell me more about the justification for arbitrarily low interest-rates for banks at an all-time market high. Tell me more about how helicopter money QE is justified being put into circulation when wages are stagnant. You obviously are an economist who has an extreme biased.
- saosebastiao 10y ago
  Macroeconomics represents less than 20% of the practitioners of economics as a profession. Of those macroeconomists, maybe 5% actively involve themselves in business cycle theory, and only a fraction of those would fall into the monetarist theory camp which would advocate for such interventions. So even your absolutely idiotic straw man argument concerns at most a fraction of 1% of the practitioners of economics. And no, I'm not an economist with "an extremely biased [sic]". I'm a supply chain engineer that has directly worked with dozens of economists for approximately 3 years, incorporated dozens of their econometric models into supply chain decision systems, and have never once have discussed anything political with them. And I just witnessed a clueless bullshitter malign the field of study that they have dedicated their lives to with an argument that could be considered libel at its most forgiving interpretation, and decided to call that clueless bullshitter out on it.