3 ms·

Economics is a highly politicized "science" however. Desperate for their pet views self-validating their world dominance, endowed chairs, think tanks, consultin

Economics is a highly politicized "science" however. Desperate for their pet views self-validating their world dominance, endowed chairs, think tanks, consulting, and special access to finance deals fundamentally skew the practice of economics at an academic level, essentially bribing them into line with oligarchical capitalism / "Reaganomics". Economists routinely are placed in politically powerful positions, invariably due in large part to their professed views on economics being in line with a dominant political (aka rich cabal or pro-industry) view of economics. If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. But the fundamental problems in economics remain: - if you can't measure it, it doesn't really exist to economics, especially to academics - if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study Of course those two points are slight exaggerations, but if one views the long course of economic study, they become pretty apparent.

true_religion 10y ago
> If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. Economics can predict 'disaster' but does not have anything to say about whether or not disaster should be avoided. To give an example closer to home, in W. Africa predominant economists believe (but do not publicly say) the AIDs crises is not a general threat to humanity. AIDs rates will increase until a peak point, then society will self-correct whether this is via enforced monogamy rituals, enhanced testing, stigmatisation of carriers, wide-spread STD protection, better medical care for carriers to prevent morality, or other methods is besides the point. What method you choose to promote is a political question, not an economic one. Just because something increases X in circumstance A, does not bear into question if circumstance A is really something you want even if X is "lower mortality rates". Economists in international organisations learn this truth, and have to be extremely careful not to substitute their own personal bias, or the preferences of their society for that of their client. For a non-morbid example, working in the US an economists would be tasks to report on how to best expand the existing highway system. Taking a step back, and saying "we should all use bullet trains and live in dense cities", isn't going to be appreciated as the 'American Dream' is predicated on suburban living.
xapata 10y ago
I'm normally a fan of generalizations to make conversation flow easier. No need to get stuck in the weeds of all the exceptions. However, you've made some assertions that go a bit too far for my comfort. It was not and has not been my experience that the majority or even plurality of economists support "Reaganomics" or "oligarchical capitalism". There are some famous and outspoken economists that are often quoted by politicians, but the rank and file are generally ignored. Of politically powerful people, it seems to me that most are lawyers. The second largest cohort is perhaps businesspeople as a general category. I'm not sure where economists would rank, but they're not common in politics outside of the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure why an academic discipline being "up to snuff" would make much difference for policy. I've never known politicians (as a whole) to appreciate science, except for military applications. The economists have been saying we should put a tax on carbon for decades. There are entire departments dedicated to "environmental economics", studying how to coordinate fisheries to avoid population collapse, how to manage forests, etc. Their policy recommendations are largely ignored. An economic system is an outcome of a socio-political system, not some exogenous phenomenon. > if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study This is false. I'm not sure what else to say. I suppose the recent years of truthiness and fake news have worn away my resistance. > those two points are slight exaggerations, but ... apparent More than slight, and not apparent to me. > if you can't measure it, it doesn't ... exist Much of econometric literature concerns how to measure things that are difficult to measure. This includes ineffable things like "freedom" or "happiness".

true_religion 10y ago

> If economics was truly up to snuff, it would be at the forefront of guiding policy to resolve the existential threat our global scale environmental disruption poses to us as a species, which is a direct result of the imperfect economic systems of the world. Economics can predict 'disaster' but does not have anything to say about whether or not disaster should be avoided. To give an example closer to home, in W. Africa predominant economists believe (but do not publicly say) the AIDs crises is not a general threat to humanity. AIDs rates will increase until a peak point, then society will self-correct whether this is via enforced monogamy rituals, enhanced testing, stigmatisation of carriers, wide-spread STD protection, better medical care for carriers to prevent morality, or other methods is besides the point. What method you choose to promote is a political question, not an economic one. Just because something increases X in circumstance A, does not bear into question if circumstance A is really something you want even if X is "lower mortality rates". Economists in international organisations learn this truth, and have to be extremely careful not to substitute their own personal bias, or the preferences of their society for that of their client. For a non-morbid example, working in the US an economists would be tasks to report on how to best expand the existing highway system. Taking a step back, and saying "we should all use bullet trains and live in dense cities", isn't going to be appreciated as the 'American Dream' is predicated on suburban living.

xapata 10y ago

I'm normally a fan of generalizations to make conversation flow easier. No need to get stuck in the weeds of all the exceptions. However, you've made some assertions that go a bit too far for my comfort. It was not and has not been my experience that the majority or even plurality of economists support "Reaganomics" or "oligarchical capitalism". There are some famous and outspoken economists that are often quoted by politicians, but the rank and file are generally ignored. Of politically powerful people, it seems to me that most are lawyers. The second largest cohort is perhaps businesspeople as a general category. I'm not sure where economists would rank, but they're not common in politics outside of the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure why an academic discipline being "up to snuff" would make much difference for policy. I've never known politicians (as a whole) to appreciate science, except for military applications. The economists have been saying we should put a tax on carbon for decades. There are entire departments dedicated to "environmental economics", studying how to coordinate fisheries to avoid population collapse, how to manage forests, etc. Their policy recommendations are largely ignored. An economic system is an outcome of a socio-political system, not some exogenous phenomenon. > if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study This is false. I'm not sure what else to say. I suppose the recent years of truthiness and fake news have worn away my resistance. > those two points are slight exaggerations, but ... apparent More than slight, and not apparent to me. > if you can't measure it, it doesn't ... exist Much of econometric literature concerns how to measure things that are difficult to measure. This includes ineffable things like "freedom" or "happiness".