3 ms·

Should we be surprised that economics preceded economists?

• deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
• imtringued 3mo ago
  As far I know economists are neither historians nor do they perform any management or business function. Considering how necessary economies are and how economists claim economists are unnecessary to run an economy, I wonder why economists even exist. The first thing a rational economist would do is tell the government to fire all economists and stop accrediting economics degrees.
  • squidbeak 3mo ago
    > Considering how necessary economies are and how economists claim economists are unnecessary to run an economy, I wonder why economists even exist. Biological processes are also 'necessary', and work just as well without biologists. Do you also wonder why Biologists exist? Or more broadly, should we give up trying to understand processes and systems if they run without intervention?
    • teliosix 3mo ago
      I think a better framing is trying to understand biology before the microscope. While the methods may look ridiculous to us today, the microscope doesn't just spring into being spontaneously. There needs to be a field of inquiry and ignorance that the tool evolves from in order to answer questions. The reality that economics in 2026 is a type of folk science lacking its microscope or telescope doesn't mean the inquiry is useless. "Economics is bullshit, the end" is not useful at all.
  • arter45 3mo ago
    Economists can be useful as observers, much like the Universe doesn't need astronomers or the weather doesn't need meteorologists. >The first thing a rational economist would do is tell the government to fire all economists and stop accrediting economics degrees Please elaborate.