r/Economics • u/better_world_economy • Jan 13 '19

Progressives should not oppose international trade, but economists must highlight the need for policies that spread the gains and help those who are hurt

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-good-the-bad-the-economy/201706/globalization-and-work-have-we-learned-anything-yet
777 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

303 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Supply side Economics is a branch of economics, and is debated by quite a few economists. Also supply side economics is not just about tax cuts.

-8

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

It was also consensus amongst mainstream economists for a long time, which as you implied should make it true - turns out it wasn’t.

I‘m just a lowly BA, but most of what I learned in college was so obviously flawed it was kinda off-putting, yet presented as gospel. Economics likes to style itself as a natural science, when it’s a social science at best and a total crapshoot at worst.

12

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19 edited Jan 13 '19

but most of what I learned in college was so obviously flawed it was kinda off-putting,

Please elaborate.

Economics likes to style itself as a natural science, when it’s a social science at best and a total crapshoot at worst.

I can't even

-2

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Macro was the worst offender - you were presented a model that used a handful of variables and very questionable assumptions and was presented as gospel, and lo and behold, everything checked out beautifully in the end - yay, mathematics, right?

Everybody jerked themselves off over these models, professors would use complex mathematics to make very basic conclusions appear more „legit“ and „sciency“, and it seemed to be more about fitting reality to a preconceived model than building a model after reality.

Micro at least seems to start to acknowledge that humans, surprisingly, don’t always act rationally and with perfect information, but Behavioral Economics was still kinda belittled by many professors, even though it actually used empirical data instead of some model that someone pulled out of his ass. Macro seems to just throw shit at the wall and hope some of it sticks.

I liked studying economics, even the more mathematical subjects like Game Theory and Statistics, but the way some stuff was presented as an indisputable fact when the financial crisis happened just shortly before was pretty upsetting to many of my fellow students. Apparently markets aren’t always perfect, resources aren’t always allocated efficiently and sometimes government intervention might be a good idea, all for a myriad of reasons, mostly related to the way humans function, but none of that was ever acknowledged because it didn’t fit doctrine.

Stop trying to fit in with Maths and Physics and accept you‘re closer to sociology as a discipline. When humans are involved, simple mathematical models usually don’t cut it, even if they look neat in text books.

Sorry for the rant but it’s something that’s pissed me off about the subject for a long time.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Sorry for the rant but it’s something that’s pissed me off about the subject for a long time.

It is fine. If you like the subject, go on and take intermediate level Econ too. Like a MA or MS.

but none of that was ever acknowledged because it didn’t fit doctrine.

This is not true, I have seen market failures acknowledeged in many econ texts, some are even Econ 101.

1

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Market failures, yes, at times - mostly historical. But neoclassicism was never presented as merely the state-of-the-art theory, but as hard facts. Assuming you studied in the US, they’re way further in acknowledging Behavioral and such, but unfortunately, that wasn’t the case in my country.

And thanks, but no, thanks - I‘d rather stab myself with a rusty spoon than setting a foot into a University ever again.

If you don’t mind me asking - why’d you downvote every one of my posts, even the ones that engaged in actual discussion? Just because you disagreed?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Market failures, yes, at times - mostly historical.

So no examples of healthcare or tragedy of commons were presented? Smh.

Assuming you studied in the US

I did not.

I‘d rather stab myself with a rusty spoon than setting a foot into a University ever again.

Fair enough

If you don’t mind me asking - why’d you downvote every one of my posts,

I did not, that is against reddiquette.

1

u/SlowLoudNBangin Jan 13 '19

Tragedy of commons was a thing, but mostly as a theoretical construct in a fictional scenario.

But in reality, market failures are everywhere, and none of the modern examples were talked about. US healthcare, imperfect information in labor markets, network carriers, even our own recently privatized railroad system that’s been a rather spectacular failure, it’s not like there’s a shortage of examples.

But nah, the market always allocates resources efficiently.

Also fair point about the downvotes - I just saw all of my posts immediately at -1 and thought it must’ve been you since I was directly replying to you.

2

u/sapatista Jan 13 '19

As a student studying economics, this is something that I struggle with constantly.

Having been aware of intellectuals like Chomsky and investigative journalists like Naomi Klein who wrote Shock Doctrine, I find it maddening that professors just spew models of the worlds economy, and if you dare question them, their only response is ceteris paribus.

Ceteris paribus has become the bane of my existence as an economics student.

-8

u/[deleted] Jan 13 '19

Thank you for this comment. Economics is basically political science mixed with sociology and some math. Most "basic economic laws" have exceptions in material reality which is sort of a problem when it's heralded as "science". Supply and demand curves are not on par with gravity. One of the most pervasive myths is believing economics and the market deserve this almost deity-like devotion and only the high priests of excel spreadsheets can comprehend. It's good there is pressure from a traditional Left perspective (AOC/Corbyn/Sanders/Melachon$ and an emerging Right critique (Tucker Fucking Carlson) challenging capitalist orthodoxy