« on: June 21, 2015, 09:31:00 pm »
I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.
That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.
Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.
He mad, sis.
I'd only like to offer the distinction between the more vocally wrong economists, which are the ones that are paid or lobbied to hold such opinions, like most if not all of the think-tank assholes, and the good economists no one has heard of because the powers that be arent interested in promoting them.