8 ms·

Golly, if I didn't know any better I'd think that maybe the field that deals with questions of power and resource allocation might not actually be apolitical, b

Golly, if I didn't know any better I'd think that maybe the field that deals with questions of power and resource allocation might not actually be apolitical, but may be primarily driven by the need to justify existing distributions of power and resources.

bjhoops1 8y ago
Good thread for more specifics on the myriad problems with mainstream economics: https://twitter.com/unlearningecon/status/920325123810447361 https://twitter.com/unlearningecon/status/920325123810447361
- closeparen 8y ago
  Whether mainstream economics has issues is wholly uninteresting, unless you are proposing a different theory with fewer issues. "The academy is flawed" doesn't mean that what the populists feel in their hearts is correct. It's the closest approximation of the truth we have.
  - robertAngst 8y ago
    >It's the closest approximation of the truth we have. Since that approximation is not the truth, but a tiny fraction of the truth, is it wrong?
    - abakker 8y ago
      Since we’re asking rhetoricals, is it useful to have an approximation of some portion of a system, or nothing at all?
      - bjhoops1 8y ago
        I think it is useful, and that’s a perfect way to describe mainstream economics. What’s frustrating (but predictable) is that there exists an entirely separate branch of economics which makes much more powerful observations about the fundamental nature of capitalist economics, including politics, power, and sociology. But Marxist economics are simply excluded from the Western economic tradition because it makes value judgements which directly and dangerously controversy the interests of the ruling capitalist class. In a healthier world, elements of mainstream economics would be combined with the fundamental Marxist critique of capitalism to produce new systems that are more efficient and less exploitative.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Any serious social sciences / liberal arts program teaches Marx. Often in a core curriculum which is mandatory even for CS majors!
    - neuronexmachina 8y ago
      "All models are wrong, but some are useful." --statistician George E.P. Box
    - tomrod 8y ago
      The wrong model? Almost certainly. A moral infraction? Debatable. Able to score points in Econ 201? Yes.
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    You don't need a better theory for the purpose of the discussion. What you can do - as one example - is take the results of what you know to be flawed not so seriously and when making decisions built-in more leeway for errors and corrections, and strengthen the human side. Incidentally, that is actually very capitalist/liberalist: Give more power away from centers to the root, the local people to make their own decisions, overriding what theory prescribes. For a concrete tiny example, when I tried to return something at a department store the employee was very afraid to do anything not by the book. She was continuously being watched by cameras too. If she had had the power to actually make decisions it would be much better. Sure, people make mistakes, but I question the solution of making people into programmed "by the rules" drones with no ability to react to local events and use their own brains (if an AI would do that everybody would be gleaming, "look how intelligent our AI is!" - even when the results are far worse than that of even a below-median IQ human brain). The point is what can change is what you do when you find that your theory is not good enough, and I'd say there are plenty of things to do even if you don't have a better theory (now or ever).
    - bjhoops1 8y ago
      Yeah, and because basically all of mainstream economics has VERY strong ideology built into its foundational assumptions, and its practitioners enjoy a great deal of (largely undeserved) respect and often great power (unlike other more truly scientific fields), the odds that a mainstream economist would look at the failure of their theories and conclude "wow, everything we've been doing is deeply flawed at best" is low. Good luck getting a mainstream economist to dig deeply and take a critical look at the fundamental contradictions within capitalism.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        Again, critiquing capitalism != establishing that some alternative is superior.
  - mcguire 8y ago
    And the Ptolemaic model of the universe is perfectly adequate for most uses.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Galileo proved its conclusions false. That’s a far cry from asserting that it failed to sufficiently consider his feelings about identity.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    The argument is that basic economic training leads to policy prescriptions that advanced economic training (and related fields, such as economic history and political philosophy) repudiate. So, no need to propose a different theory. Just prominently include the above disclaimer while you're teaching basic economics, and then proceed to teach further economics (and related fields) before the kids go off to work for investment banks.
adwhit 8y ago
"I drew an upward sloping curve and a downward sloping curve that meet in the middle, and therefore socialism cannot work." The 2008 crash called for a massive reassessment of the political and cultural status of economics. It required honest economists to recognize their profession not as a neutral description of the world but as a tool for the powerful to exercise dominion over the rest of us. But "cognitive dissonance doesn't work like that", especially when doing so would mean giving up prestige, lucrative consulting opportunities, the ear of the government. For some reason, those other social sciences don't seem to get invited to nearly such lavish parties... Of course, many people within and without the profession have been making this argument for decades, since way before 2008. But funny thing, the way power works is - those sort of people are never listened to. Why would that change now? Edit: For a nice overview of these arguments I recommend the book "Economists and the Powerful" from 2012.
- candiodari 8y ago
  You criticize the social sciences ... because economics is "just about justifying existing power structures". That seems a bit ... well, wrong. Or at least the assumption that social sciences is any different from the worst you ascribe to economics here. NONE of the social sciences, not even English studies, claim to be value free (that would be mighty inconvenient for them. Of course Hamlet only makes sense within the value system of England of that time ... studying it outside of that context just won't work. Likewise criminality happens within a context. Very few bank and ATM robberies in the Soviet Union, everything social happens within a specific context, directed by values). But ... the social sciences. They're ALL explicitly about something in between studying and justifying existing power structures ... No exceptions. Studying (and justifying) existing society is what the humanities are about. It's the definition. By contrast economics has a branch that is entirely value free (game theory, imho the hardest part), and most of economics likes to pretend it is value free (and whilst they're not 100% right at that, they're ... let's say 75% right), and only a small part is justifying existing power structures. Social sciences tell the government what to do like priests do : based on what "it should be" according to how we see society. Economists are more humble, and merely try to say "your choices are A, B, C. These will lead to X, Y, Z". And yes, social scientists resent that the real world should be allowed to influence their perfect world, but ... only the truly insane would follow through. Note that at no point did I say that makes social sciences worthless. > The 2008 crash called for a massive reassessment of the political and cultural status of economics No it did not. You act as if people listened to economists before that. In fact, I would argue the opposite is true: economists triggered (out of self-interest, because they were working at banks) the crisis BECAUSE people went too far of the reasonable path with loans. That's the big problem that never seems to get through. There are many causes of the crisis, of course. However the actual cause is people ... bought and built houses they could never afford (in other words they used up more resources than they could ever hope to contribute to society). That's the cause of the crisis. The banks attitude and corruption and lying ... actually let those people enjoy their ill-gotten gains for a lot longer than would otherwise have been possible (lying on loans then buying ... ill-gotten is a fair description). Not indefinitely. And of course they're the easy target. The crisis was far preferable to the alternative : that people would just sit on those resources preventing society from working. But yeah ... "WEI ! They took my stuff ! And look, they're corrupt !". Well, yes, they're corrupt. That's bad, but sorry to say, it's not the problem. And yet, funnily enough yesterday morning in the newspaper one particular French, poor family came into an article. They were so poor, it was judged by social workers, that they needed to be given a house (that's one thing France does). A large house that they had "helped design and locate". Which poor family you ask ? The new cabinet minister. The woman makes 8900 euros per month, just from her main job (she has 4, though granted, they likely pay less), and the husband (who does not have published pay), I must say, likely makes more. Social workers' judgement ? These people needed to be given a free, 3 bedroom home in a Paris suburb.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Karl Marx: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." https://www.bartleby.com/10/105.html https://www.bartleby.com/10/105.html
tomrod 8y ago
Economist here. I think you're mixing political science (power distribution + more) with economics (efficient resource allocation + more). Happy to talk more if you're interested.
- FabHK 8y ago
  I think things are not that simply delineated, and the use of economics to justify existing political arrangements is well documented (eg in James Kwak's book Economism).
- awakeasleep 8y ago
  Can you explain how resource allocation is not a political issue?
  - tomrod 8y ago
    I can't, because the overlap with politics certainly happens in a number of contexts. One question we economists do not routinely address is "where do the preferences we study come from?" Often times preferences are politically motivated.
    - fallingfrog 8y ago
      Preferences? I think what you're missing is that money is one type of power, and that basically the study of economics, politics and culture are all just different ways of studying human relationships, of which inequalities of power are a crucial part. There are two broad types of relationships: relationships of rough equality and relationships of gross inequality of power. The latter are almost always abusive, because if you are in a position of much greater power than someone else, it's just too tempting and easy to take advantage of them. Preferences have little to do with it.
      - tomrod 8y ago
        Preferences are the starting point of economic analyses, under the assumption that people pick what they want after who-knows-what a priori decision process. Money (or, more commonly, assets) is sometimes included in models, but is not a starting point. If you're looking for models where solely wealth=power as an entry point into the field, I suggest political science (mentioned above) or finance. Overlap with economics in toolkit and occasionally questions, yes, but not composing the entirety of economics.

bjhoops1 8y ago

Good thread for more specifics on the myriad problems with mainstream economics: https://twitter.com/unlearningecon/status/920325123810447361 https://twitter.com/unlearningecon/status/920325123810447361

closeparen 8y ago
Whether mainstream economics has issues is wholly uninteresting, unless you are proposing a different theory with fewer issues. "The academy is flawed" doesn't mean that what the populists feel in their hearts is correct. It's the closest approximation of the truth we have.
- robertAngst 8y ago
  >It's the closest approximation of the truth we have. Since that approximation is not the truth, but a tiny fraction of the truth, is it wrong?
  - abakker 8y ago
    Since we’re asking rhetoricals, is it useful to have an approximation of some portion of a system, or nothing at all?
    - bjhoops1 8y ago
      I think it is useful, and that’s a perfect way to describe mainstream economics. What’s frustrating (but predictable) is that there exists an entirely separate branch of economics which makes much more powerful observations about the fundamental nature of capitalist economics, including politics, power, and sociology. But Marxist economics are simply excluded from the Western economic tradition because it makes value judgements which directly and dangerously controversy the interests of the ruling capitalist class. In a healthier world, elements of mainstream economics would be combined with the fundamental Marxist critique of capitalism to produce new systems that are more efficient and less exploitative.
      - closeparen 8y ago
        Any serious social sciences / liberal arts program teaches Marx. Often in a core curriculum which is mandatory even for CS majors!
  - neuronexmachina 8y ago
    "All models are wrong, but some are useful." --statistician George E.P. Box
  - tomrod 8y ago
    The wrong model? Almost certainly. A moral infraction? Debatable. Able to score points in Econ 201? Yes.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  You don't need a better theory for the purpose of the discussion. What you can do - as one example - is take the results of what you know to be flawed not so seriously and when making decisions built-in more leeway for errors and corrections, and strengthen the human side. Incidentally, that is actually very capitalist/liberalist: Give more power away from centers to the root, the local people to make their own decisions, overriding what theory prescribes. For a concrete tiny example, when I tried to return something at a department store the employee was very afraid to do anything not by the book. She was continuously being watched by cameras too. If she had had the power to actually make decisions it would be much better. Sure, people make mistakes, but I question the solution of making people into programmed "by the rules" drones with no ability to react to local events and use their own brains (if an AI would do that everybody would be gleaming, "look how intelligent our AI is!" - even when the results are far worse than that of even a below-median IQ human brain). The point is what can change is what you do when you find that your theory is not good enough, and I'd say there are plenty of things to do even if you don't have a better theory (now or ever).
  - bjhoops1 8y ago
    Yeah, and because basically all of mainstream economics has VERY strong ideology built into its foundational assumptions, and its practitioners enjoy a great deal of (largely undeserved) respect and often great power (unlike other more truly scientific fields), the odds that a mainstream economist would look at the failure of their theories and conclude "wow, everything we've been doing is deeply flawed at best" is low. Good luck getting a mainstream economist to dig deeply and take a critical look at the fundamental contradictions within capitalism.
    - closeparen 8y ago
      Again, critiquing capitalism != establishing that some alternative is superior.
- mcguire 8y ago
  And the Ptolemaic model of the universe is perfectly adequate for most uses.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Galileo proved its conclusions false. That’s a far cry from asserting that it failed to sufficiently consider his feelings about identity.
- FabHK 8y ago
  The argument is that basic economic training leads to policy prescriptions that advanced economic training (and related fields, such as economic history and political philosophy) repudiate. So, no need to propose a different theory. Just prominently include the above disclaimer while you're teaching basic economics, and then proceed to teach further economics (and related fields) before the kids go off to work for investment banks.

adwhit 8y ago

"I drew an upward sloping curve and a downward sloping curve that meet in the middle, and therefore socialism cannot work." The 2008 crash called for a massive reassessment of the political and cultural status of economics. It required honest economists to recognize their profession not as a neutral description of the world but as a tool for the powerful to exercise dominion over the rest of us. But "cognitive dissonance doesn't work like that", especially when doing so would mean giving up prestige, lucrative consulting opportunities, the ear of the government. For some reason, those other social sciences don't seem to get invited to nearly such lavish parties... Of course, many people within and without the profession have been making this argument for decades, since way before 2008. But funny thing, the way power works is - those sort of people are never listened to. Why would that change now? Edit: For a nice overview of these arguments I recommend the book "Economists and the Powerful" from 2012.

candiodari 8y ago
You criticize the social sciences ... because economics is "just about justifying existing power structures". That seems a bit ... well, wrong. Or at least the assumption that social sciences is any different from the worst you ascribe to economics here. NONE of the social sciences, not even English studies, claim to be value free (that would be mighty inconvenient for them. Of course Hamlet only makes sense within the value system of England of that time ... studying it outside of that context just won't work. Likewise criminality happens within a context. Very few bank and ATM robberies in the Soviet Union, everything social happens within a specific context, directed by values). But ... the social sciences. They're ALL explicitly about something in between studying and justifying existing power structures ... No exceptions. Studying (and justifying) existing society is what the humanities are about. It's the definition. By contrast economics has a branch that is entirely value free (game theory, imho the hardest part), and most of economics likes to pretend it is value free (and whilst they're not 100% right at that, they're ... let's say 75% right), and only a small part is justifying existing power structures. Social sciences tell the government what to do like priests do : based on what "it should be" according to how we see society. Economists are more humble, and merely try to say "your choices are A, B, C. These will lead to X, Y, Z". And yes, social scientists resent that the real world should be allowed to influence their perfect world, but ... only the truly insane would follow through. Note that at no point did I say that makes social sciences worthless. > The 2008 crash called for a massive reassessment of the political and cultural status of economics No it did not. You act as if people listened to economists before that. In fact, I would argue the opposite is true: economists triggered (out of self-interest, because they were working at banks) the crisis BECAUSE people went too far of the reasonable path with loans. That's the big problem that never seems to get through. There are many causes of the crisis, of course. However the actual cause is people ... bought and built houses they could never afford (in other words they used up more resources than they could ever hope to contribute to society). That's the cause of the crisis. The banks attitude and corruption and lying ... actually let those people enjoy their ill-gotten gains for a lot longer than would otherwise have been possible (lying on loans then buying ... ill-gotten is a fair description). Not indefinitely. And of course they're the easy target. The crisis was far preferable to the alternative : that people would just sit on those resources preventing society from working. But yeah ... "WEI ! They took my stuff ! And look, they're corrupt !". Well, yes, they're corrupt. That's bad, but sorry to say, it's not the problem. And yet, funnily enough yesterday morning in the newspaper one particular French, poor family came into an article. They were so poor, it was judged by social workers, that they needed to be given a house (that's one thing France does). A large house that they had "helped design and locate". Which poor family you ask ? The new cabinet minister. The woman makes 8900 euros per month, just from her main job (she has 4, though granted, they likely pay less), and the husband (who does not have published pay), I must say, likely makes more. Social workers' judgement ? These people needed to be given a free, 3 bedroom home in a Paris suburb.

dredmorbius 8y ago

Karl Marx: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." https://www.bartleby.com/10/105.html https://www.bartleby.com/10/105.html

tomrod 8y ago

Economist here. I think you're mixing political science (power distribution + more) with economics (efficient resource allocation + more). Happy to talk more if you're interested.

FabHK 8y ago
I think things are not that simply delineated, and the use of economics to justify existing political arrangements is well documented (eg in James Kwak's book Economism).
awakeasleep 8y ago
Can you explain how resource allocation is not a political issue?
- tomrod 8y ago
  I can't, because the overlap with politics certainly happens in a number of contexts. One question we economists do not routinely address is "where do the preferences we study come from?" Often times preferences are politically motivated.
  - fallingfrog 8y ago
    Preferences? I think what you're missing is that money is one type of power, and that basically the study of economics, politics and culture are all just different ways of studying human relationships, of which inequalities of power are a crucial part. There are two broad types of relationships: relationships of rough equality and relationships of gross inequality of power. The latter are almost always abusive, because if you are in a position of much greater power than someone else, it's just too tempting and easy to take advantage of them. Preferences have little to do with it.
    - tomrod 8y ago
      Preferences are the starting point of economic analyses, under the assumption that people pick what they want after who-knows-what a priori decision process. Money (or, more commonly, assets) is sometimes included in models, but is not a starting point. If you're looking for models where solely wealth=power as an entry point into the field, I suggest political science (mentioned above) or finance. Overlap with economics in toolkit and occasionally questions, yes, but not composing the entirety of economics.