Yeah, you're preaching to the choir. The paltry predictive power of economics as "science" combined with the role economists play as modern-day court astrologe

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir. The paltry predictive power of economics as "science" combined with the role economists play as modern-day court astrologers has always made it seem absurd to me. > The reality is of course that there is plenty of money to deal with most of our massive structural problems. I'm a fan of Bucky Fuller, he calculated that we could do it with only about $25B in 1970's dollars. The catch is we would have to deploy our resources and technology efficiently (rather than maximizing profit.) > But who owns that money? The rich who will rather see the world destroyed than give it up. It seems that way. In any event, the solution will be social and even spiritual (rather than technological.)