The main problem with economics is, at its core it is completely rotten. Completely unsound and rotten. The discipline as it currently stands can be scrapped e

The main problem with economics is, at its core it is completely rotten. Completely unsound and rotten. The discipline as it currently stands can be scrapped entirely. It provides no actual benefit. Its primarily used to mislead, entrap, and then coerce, and the promises it makes are almost never credible. You see this in the economic impact studies which get done for places like the IMF in third-world countries to justify loans they'll never be able to repay, which get funneled and laundered back into certain US companies. It may be useful to force them to trade their UN votes to avoid austerity measures but that's about it, and GDP isn't a useful indicator of economic output or growth. GDP can be split up or concentrated in a single person and you'll get the same numbers. I've studied the classic economic texts such as Adam Smith, and those are solid because that is how it worked when you didn't have a unbacked debt-based economy. Almost everything after that fundamentally misleads, is flawed, or untrue. The micro economics course I recently took for the second time and failed out of again was more akin to political courses for indoctrination. Anyone who has ever taken an argumentation or logic class is fundamentally disadvantaged when taking these courses. No amount of reasoning will get you to the correct answer. Every third sentence in that textbook was misleading or outright untrue, intended to brainwash (using political warfare and malign influence). It was largely at the whim of the author, and tests were guesses on guesses. No heuristics to get a set answer, no context, just a guess as to what was correct; the chapter being tested might have been about comparable advantage, and given you 3 answers that were all correct to choose from, but only 1 answers considered correct, and they don't provide sufficient information to get to a correct answer. Worse, professor was simply a glorified proctor, no better than a teaching assistant who instead of lecturing pointed to Khan Academy, didn't adjust issues with the online autograder, and this guy teaches the course at all local state and community colleges (5+ campuses) the same way with impunity for the last 5-10 years. The material it covers is fundamentally unsound. It makes key assumptions that are never really true. You have the tested vocabulary calling a free market, highly regulated by the government. Marking it incorrect when you choose "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses". The current curriculum has no business being a required part of general education for college degrees. Also, what you learn will fundamentally never be true in an unbacked fiat currency system because as prices deviate from rational price, and more money is printed, you run into a form of the economic calculation problem which really galls the socialists. You might call it a market, but they aren't really markets when there is no real price discovery. Its just internal exchanges of resources, or central planning by another name. We can all thank Pearson for making it so easy for professors to not do their job. Some time take a look at the COMEX registered vs eligible, what happens when you have two coordinating entities fixing the spot by trading near equal amounts of paper contracts between each-other and no independent audit, ever.