3 ms·

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

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.

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.