3 ms·

Economic theory in western nations is so hilariously skewed towards free market capitalist think that obvious models are just straight up missed, or sometimes o

Economic theory in western nations is so hilariously skewed towards free market capitalist think that obvious models are just straight up missed, or sometimes obviously wrong conclusions are drawn. Most economics start with the understanding that the answer or cause is something about free market forces, and then work backwards. For example, when talking about the economics of healthcare (or anything else, but lets start with healthcare), the conversation is approached from the get-go under the assumption that: 1. Healthcare is already a free market. 2. It is possible for healthcare to be a free market. 1. is just not true. Healthcare, in the US and and all developed nations, is not a free market. But, economists will just assume it is, because they assume everything is a free market, and then apply free market dynamics. Basically, they skip step 1, and go to step 1000. And, for number 2, it's very debatable. IMO no, healthcare cannot be a free market, just by virtue of what healthcare is as a service. But that's debatable, I won't get into it. Point is, we immediately start our economic understanding based off assumptions on top of assumptions that come from free market thinking, thinking around IP, thinking about consumer knowledge, thinking about access, etc. We make absolutely wild and unsubstantiated claims for free, and nobody checks them.

corimaith 1y ago
>But, economists will just assume it is, because they assume everything is a free market, and then apply free market dynamics. Basically, they skip step 1, and go to step 1000. Which economist are you referring to here? It's hard to even see what specific policy conclusions you're critiquing here, beyond a vague strawman against "free market assumptions".
- quantumgarbage 1y ago
  That isn't a vague strawman, that's a great point. Economists work from assumptions, which can be flawed in two ways: they can be blatantly wrong (see the work Kahneman and Tversky did on the rational individual hypothesis) and they can be unfalsifiable (you can't always gather data about the assumption itself). There is a good essay on this from Tirole (yet a very mainstream economist) here: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/by/tirole/assumptions_in_economics_15_10_19.pdf https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/...
  - corimaith 1y ago
    You're pointing to a critique of an assumption, what I'm saying can you name a specific economic policy or position given by an economist that is used in real public policy and then we can measure the merits of those policies and their assumptions as opposed to the counterfactuals. I'd bet 9/10 times the chosen policy likely would have been the most logical option. After all, it's not like the epistemologies of the other humanities stands on far more shakier grounds...
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
      > the most logical option Well for whom? Another aspect of this problem is an economic solution can have winners and losers. An economic policy that invokes slavery as solution to labor issues may actually be 'logical' but clearly puts the interests of one group over another. Economics is just the science resource allocation after all. People have some serious biases when it comes to deciding policy on who gets what and how.
      - corimaith 1y ago
        I've asking multiple posters to give a specific policy example to critique and so far all of you have been unable to do so, instead dancing around and critiquing vague notions of a possibility of bias without giving concrete examples. Very postmodern, but this is why actual policymakers don't listen to critique like this.
        Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        Ok, cutting taxes to the very rich while raising them on middle and lower classes and cutting services. This was part of the big beautiful bill. This is 'logical' from the point of view of the billionaire class, but in terms of the economy that everyone else lives in, things will be worse for them.
        corimaith 1y ago
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> the conversation is approached from the get-go under the assumption that: 1. Healthcare is already a free market. 2. It is possible for healthcare to be a free market Nobody does this.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  Literally almost everyone does this. If you start talking about competition or consumer choice, surprise! You have made an extremely bold assumption: that healthcare is currently operating as a free market. That assumption is actually, like, 1000 assumptions. Do people prove even one of those? No. They just move on and hope nobody notices. And, well, we don't. We're so used to these economy falacies that they're practically invisible.
the_sleaze_ 1y ago
If yall want to know why "Im a Doctor" economists are dying out - look at this back and forth. There is not one single solution or thread here. It's a series of old married couples bickering.

corimaith 1y ago

>But, economists will just assume it is, because they assume everything is a free market, and then apply free market dynamics. Basically, they skip step 1, and go to step 1000. Which economist are you referring to here? It's hard to even see what specific policy conclusions you're critiquing here, beyond a vague strawman against "free market assumptions".

quantumgarbage 1y ago
That isn't a vague strawman, that's a great point. Economists work from assumptions, which can be flawed in two ways: they can be blatantly wrong (see the work Kahneman and Tversky did on the rational individual hypothesis) and they can be unfalsifiable (you can't always gather data about the assumption itself). There is a good essay on this from Tirole (yet a very mainstream economist) here: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/by/tirole/assumptions_in_economics_15_10_19.pdf https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/...
- corimaith 1y ago
  You're pointing to a critique of an assumption, what I'm saying can you name a specific economic policy or position given by an economist that is used in real public policy and then we can measure the merits of those policies and their assumptions as opposed to the counterfactuals. I'd bet 9/10 times the chosen policy likely would have been the most logical option. After all, it's not like the epistemologies of the other humanities stands on far more shakier grounds...
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    > the most logical option Well for whom? Another aspect of this problem is an economic solution can have winners and losers. An economic policy that invokes slavery as solution to labor issues may actually be 'logical' but clearly puts the interests of one group over another. Economics is just the science resource allocation after all. People have some serious biases when it comes to deciding policy on who gets what and how.
    - corimaith 1y ago
      I've asking multiple posters to give a specific policy example to critique and so far all of you have been unable to do so, instead dancing around and critiquing vague notions of a possibility of bias without giving concrete examples. Very postmodern, but this is why actual policymakers don't listen to critique like this.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        Ok, cutting taxes to the very rich while raising them on middle and lower classes and cutting services. This was part of the big beautiful bill. This is 'logical' from the point of view of the billionaire class, but in terms of the economy that everyone else lives in, things will be worse for them.
        corimaith 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> the conversation is approached from the get-go under the assumption that: 1. Healthcare is already a free market. 2. It is possible for healthcare to be a free market Nobody does this.

array_key_first 1y ago
Literally almost everyone does this. If you start talking about competition or consumer choice, surprise! You have made an extremely bold assumption: that healthcare is currently operating as a free market. That assumption is actually, like, 1000 assumptions. Do people prove even one of those? No. They just move on and hope nobody notices. And, well, we don't. We're so used to these economy falacies that they're practically invisible.

the_sleaze_ 1y ago

If yall want to know why "Im a Doctor" economists are dying out - look at this back and forth. There is not one single solution or thread here. It's a series of old married couples bickering.