6 ms·

We don't have consensus for cause and effect at all. What we have is a well established groupthink trying desperately to maintain its view and its power. The 2

We don't have consensus for cause and effect at all. What we have is a well established groupthink trying desperately to maintain its view and its power. The 2008 crash threw all of it up in the air. I'd recommend reading debunking economics to see the heterodox viewpoint. Essentially there is no value free economics. That a marketing pitch for a set of values. There is only political economy.

astine 8y ago
Economics is an evolving field of study like any other. There are many different schools of thought even within the 'mainstream' position. Using disagreements and changes within the field as an argument that the entire field is flawed is what climate change deniers use when they want to dismiss evidence of climate change. There is room for disagreement on policy without dismissal of the entire field. Besides, which heterodox viewpoint are you going to argue for? The Marxist? Austrian? Both of these are more clearly 'marketing pitches for a set values' than 'mainstream' economics. If an excessive emphasis on the free market is a pet-peeve of yours then you certainly don't want the latter.
- f00_ 8y ago
  it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were. by the arguments of market fundamentalists/etc you'd think they think economics is a deductive science part of his whole thing is that economics isn't something too complicated for the average person to understand. too much mathiness and touted as an absolute certain science >The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.
  - j88439h84 8y ago
    > it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were Can you explain the difference between an "exact science" and the other thing?
    - mcrad 8y ago
      Real science involves experiments and therefore proof of causality.
      - koube 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics Which is a moot point because science is done without controlled experiments all of the time, e.g. astrophysics, epidemiology, sociology. One of the most famous cases in medicine is the connection of drinking water to cholera discovered using observation to connect deaths to a nearby well.
        mcrad 8y ago
        Well it’s great that they do more than just design experiments and hack p-vales all day;) Geez, had no idea it was such a controversial statement. What do you want to say, every application of math or coding counts as science? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
        koube 8y ago
        Whether something is a "real science" is based on whether or not science is done, not the difficulty of the subject matter. Spending so much time trying to narrowly semanticize science in a way that specifically excludes economics is navel gazing. The purpose of these discussions seems to be to discredit economics and discount it's predictive power by defining it as not-science, but predictive power doesn't come from the definition of the word science, it comes from the statistical methods that science uses. Does it involve research? Does the research produce models with predictive power? Ok, let's use it, just like every policy maker in the world pre-2016.
      - barry-cotter 8y ago
        Epidemiology, ecology, astronomy, cosmology, botany, zoology and geology obviously don’t count as sciences then. And you have no idea how much effort goes into randomised controlled trials and the search for good natural experiments and instrumental variables to answer economic questions, to say nothing of the actual experiments in economics done every time a price is changed or a new product appears. There is a ton of data in microeconomics. It may be hard to use and, ill fitted to the question you want to answer and difficult to get but there’s lots of data. Macroeconomics has many fewer data points and you can’t really perform experiments but even macro, for all the pointless math worship has made progress.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Clarifying, Debunking Economics is a book by economist Steve Keen. Excellent and highly recommended. https://www.worldcat.org/title/debunking-economics-the-naked-emperor-dethroned/oclc/962030700 https://www.worldcat.org/title/debunking-economics-the-naked...

astine 8y ago

Economics is an evolving field of study like any other. There are many different schools of thought even within the 'mainstream' position. Using disagreements and changes within the field as an argument that the entire field is flawed is what climate change deniers use when they want to dismiss evidence of climate change. There is room for disagreement on policy without dismissal of the entire field. Besides, which heterodox viewpoint are you going to argue for? The Marxist? Austrian? Both of these are more clearly 'marketing pitches for a set values' than 'mainstream' economics. If an excessive emphasis on the free market is a pet-peeve of yours then you certainly don't want the latter.

f00_ 8y ago
it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were. by the arguments of market fundamentalists/etc you'd think they think economics is a deductive science part of his whole thing is that economics isn't something too complicated for the average person to understand. too much mathiness and touted as an absolute certain science >The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.
- j88439h84 8y ago
  > it's not an exact science in the same way physics or chemistry were Can you explain the difference between an "exact science" and the other thing?
  - mcrad 8y ago
    Real science involves experiments and therefore proof of causality.
    - koube 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econometrics Which is a moot point because science is done without controlled experiments all of the time, e.g. astrophysics, epidemiology, sociology. One of the most famous cases in medicine is the connection of drinking water to cholera discovered using observation to connect deaths to a nearby well.
      - mcrad 8y ago
        Well it’s great that they do more than just design experiments and hack p-vales all day;) Geez, had no idea it was such a controversial statement. What do you want to say, every application of math or coding counts as science? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
        koube 8y ago
        Whether something is a "real science" is based on whether or not science is done, not the difficulty of the subject matter. Spending so much time trying to narrowly semanticize science in a way that specifically excludes economics is navel gazing. The purpose of these discussions seems to be to discredit economics and discount it's predictive power by defining it as not-science, but predictive power doesn't come from the definition of the word science, it comes from the statistical methods that science uses. Does it involve research? Does the research produce models with predictive power? Ok, let's use it, just like every policy maker in the world pre-2016.
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      Epidemiology, ecology, astronomy, cosmology, botany, zoology and geology obviously don’t count as sciences then. And you have no idea how much effort goes into randomised controlled trials and the search for good natural experiments and instrumental variables to answer economic questions, to say nothing of the actual experiments in economics done every time a price is changed or a new product appears. There is a ton of data in microeconomics. It may be hard to use and, ill fitted to the question you want to answer and difficult to get but there’s lots of data. Macroeconomics has many fewer data points and you can’t really perform experiments but even macro, for all the pointless math worship has made progress.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Clarifying, Debunking Economics is a book by economist Steve Keen. Excellent and highly recommended. https://www.worldcat.org/title/debunking-economics-the-naked-emperor-dethroned/oclc/962030700 https://www.worldcat.org/title/debunking-economics-the-naked...