3 ms·
>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?
by 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 agoSince we’re asking rhetoricals, is it useful to have an approximation of some portion of a system, or nothing at all?
- bjhoops1 8y agoI 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 agoAny 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 agoThe wrong model? Almost certainly. A moral infraction? Debatable. Able to score points in Econ 201? Yes.