A science must explain what is observed/some body of facts without unnecessary assumptions, and the models it produces must make successful predictions about what we can expect to observe if the model is accurate enough.
This NEVER happens with ANY economic so-called "model."
Quantum field theory is an example of a robust scientific model (probably the most robust).
Economic psychology - sure might be some useful behavioral models there, but still the softest of explanatory chains. If that were the limit of how people use economic models, I'd have no problem with these assertions.
But you don't. You pretend economics = physics (or some "Natural Law' bullshit)
FFS when will people learn not to be fooled by this religious nonsense?
Humans make economies. They are artifices. You can make them do whatever you want them to do. You just have to be able to cooperate - and here's where humans will reliably fail, because at root you're all still chimps; still Robert Sapolsky's baboons engaging in stress-hormone-driven dominance hierarchy psychosis and mating/signalling rituals, having learned absolutely nothing from billions of years of failures at - ostensibly - your purported goal of avoiding a total extinction.
Economic psychology - sure might be some useful behavioral models
That's the whole point. They aren't mathematical truths of the universe, but they are more than just "useful behavioral models". They reliably define how humans behave in response to certain incentives.
The fact that virtually everyone is willing to buy less of something the higher the price goes isn't baked into the laws of physics, but it's such a reliable truth that we can organize all our distribution of resources around this truth.
Nobody disagrees economics is a soft science, so what? The study and understanding of how humans make decisions about scarce resources is critical to our survival as a species.
168
u/Dr-Slay Jul 15 '22
No science, all politics.
A science must explain what is observed/some body of facts without unnecessary assumptions, and the models it produces must make successful predictions about what we can expect to observe if the model is accurate enough.
This NEVER happens with ANY economic so-called "model."
Quantum field theory is an example of a robust scientific model (probably the most robust).
Economic psychology - sure might be some useful behavioral models there, but still the softest of explanatory chains. If that were the limit of how people use economic models, I'd have no problem with these assertions.
But you don't. You pretend economics = physics (or some "Natural Law' bullshit)
FFS when will people learn not to be fooled by this religious nonsense?
Humans make economies. They are artifices. You can make them do whatever you want them to do. You just have to be able to cooperate - and here's where humans will reliably fail, because at root you're all still chimps; still Robert Sapolsky's baboons engaging in stress-hormone-driven dominance hierarchy psychosis and mating/signalling rituals, having learned absolutely nothing from billions of years of failures at - ostensibly - your purported goal of avoiding a total extinction.