Economics is basically social psychology with some numbers sprinkled in.
Don't forget gambling.
... And wishful thinking!
So..... religion
No joke: Economists do kind of fulfill the role of priests in that they explain the "necessary [fake] world order" to the masses.
Saying "Capitalism is a bad system" gets you comparable comments from economists as "Gods don't exist" gets you from priests in a religious society. Both comments also get cops on your ass as well (depending on where you live).
They don't even disguise it, praxeology is effectively theology without the metaphysics.
I struggle to consider it scientific because it bakes in so many fundamental assumptions without questioning them. At least mainstream economics.
Ah, uh, it's a xkcd. Expanded by a reddit user, forever ago.
For this reason it seems closer to religion for me
I keep calling it a pseudoscience.
Someone told me that I "don't know what a pseudoscience is" and that I was "using the word wrong."
No. No, I know what it is, and I used it precisely the way I meant it.
Wayyy too many people think classic economic theory is a legitimate field...
classic economic theory
To be fair, that's like 150 years old, back when they believed in spontaneous generation, and the idea that continents move was absurd and crazy.
Economics is a funny one as ultimately it's a focused & technical strand of anthropology (which I believe is considered a science by many) that people often incorrectly lump in with maths.
Kinda tough for an academic to run meaningful experiments on an actual economy though beyond models and simulation. And as anyone who has watched a Gary Stevenson video or two will know, your average academic economist is pretty bad at models and simulations.
Though I guess even bad experiments are still experiments
Edit: typo
Most of them are pretty bad at anthro too tbh lol
Gary Stevenson is also an overconfident blow hard who thinks because he made money on the stock market he knows more than everyone. I'm a psychologist not an economist, I don't like economics, but this is all still wildly off base from what actually happens in academia. Economist don't run randomized control trial (RCT) style experiments. They use completely different techniques with different statistical methods to test assumptions. Are these as high quality for causal reasoning as a RCT study? No absolutely not. However I think the average person would be shocked at how much of every field of science does not confirm their studies to that gold standard and how difficult it is to match that exact specific scenario statistically.
Economics brings the spherical cow issue to its logical extreme with “efficient markets”
If markets are driven by “rational actors” then why is advertising a trillion dollar industry?
Bro, hear me out, what if I buy some of your company, bro, and you buy some of my company, and then we, like, keep buying and selling slices of our own companies back and forth to each other?
Bro we're gonna generate so much economy from this. We're gonna generate trillions in value, bro, just trading back and forth.
... wait... product? What product?
Economics, as an intellectual discipline, is closer to theology than physics. Its power is proportional to the belief it commands.
Finance is an arbitrary subset of mathematics, cherry picked to retroactively support a given economic model, and applied as its supporting mythology.
It’s entirely imaginary, which means alternatives are only ever a conjuring away.
Economics is just statistics but they ignore half the data that goes into it. It's homeopathic statistics.
"Economics is basically math" is one of the greatest PR stunts that anybody ever pulled. Mainstream economics is pseudoscience sprinkled with some maths so people take it more seriously, it has barely any more predictive power than palm reading.
The main reason being that if they actually did the math in good faith, the outcomes wouldn't fit the preordained conclusions. A researcher recently wrote about his experiences trying to get a bad study retracted and being stonewalled.
Economics is just applied statistics with a little sociology mixed in
Economics:
Let's turn this
Into this!
That's capitalism. There are other forms of economics.
Yeah but capitalist economics is all that they teach in the indoctrination system... Unless maybe you pay for it later in college.
And TBH the scientific credentials are pretty trash either way.
Don't forget the other sibling: IT. Theoretical Computer Science is basically a form of mathematics, with all its algorithms and data structures that you can study and do proofs about.
Save some potato salad for cousin Music!
I'm so tired of this flack that economics gets, that it is somehow "lesser" because it is a "soft science."
Economics does run randomised control trials. Economics does adhere to testable hypotheses. Economics does use rigorous statistics/maths.
You how sometimes grants/government programs are randomly allocated? Those are live, randomised control trials, and if you read the fine print you'll find a project number for researchers studying the effects of rental subsidies, health insurance, etc, one of which being the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment. Those cancerous recommender algorithms, which are the culmination of millions of live A/B tests? Developed by the Econ PhDs poached by Big tech.
Oregon Medicaid health experiment - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment
It is true that many hypotheses cannot have experiments run. But this makes it even more impressive when economists find natural experiments. For example, the 2021 Nobel Laureates Card, Angrist, and Imbens studied the effects of minimum wage by looking at the towns on the border of New Jersey/New York, which had implemented different minimum wages. They found that increasing minimum wage did not increase unemployment, completely contrary to ahem conservative wisdom.
The Prize in Economic Sciences 2021 - Popular science background - NobelPrize.org - https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2021/popular-information/
In contrast, many of the supposed "hard" sciences cannot run experiments either, or also adhere to untestable simplifying assumptions. Ecology, physics, geology (just to name a few) all study systems which are too large and complex to run experiments, yet the general public does not perceive them as "soft".
The difference is that economics is unfortunately one of those fields where lots of unqualified people (read politicians) have lots of strong opinions about, and in turn has a disproportionate influence on everyone. Those criticised austerity measures in the wake of the GFC? That was due to politicians implementing the policies of the infamous "Growth in a Time of Debt" by Reinhart-Rogoff paper, which was published as a "proceeding" and hence not peer reviewed. During the peer review process was found to contain numerous errors including incorrect excel formulas. It didn't matter - policymakers liked the conclusion, and rushed its implementation anyway.
Growth in a Time of Debt - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt
If you look into any awful policy, you will see a similar pattern. Even Milton Friedman, as an ultra hard libertarian for advocated for lowering taxes and abolishing all government benefit programs, recognised that poor people need some assistance, and so actually advocated for replacing benefits with a universal negative income tax (an even more extreme version of UBI). It didn't matter - policymakers of the Reagan Thatcher era heard the lowering taxes and cutting welfare part, and didn't do the UBI.
It's a field full of grifters that get lifted up because they tell rich people what they want to hear.
The Chicago School is the driving force behind the rise of neoliberalism, the movement right of Western democracies, and the return of fascism in America.
Yes, there's good work done in the field. But economists could prove definitively that capitalism is killing us all and that socialism is the only solution to organizing civilisation, and the only economists being platformed would continue to be neoliberal shit heels.
Economists' math is as good as anyone else'.
The main problem is that economies are incredibly chaotic systems and all the math that humans can actually read described them poorly.
The main problem is that the math they do is often based on assumptions that have repeatedly been disproven but are still treated like gospel.
If you assume 2+2=5 you can follow up with as much correct math as you like, your results will always be shit.
Sort of. They won't say that 2+2=5. The errors are in the isomorphism they claim and the empirical assumptions they make.
Two of my favorites:
Almost all of economics assumes normal distributions. We have good reason to believe that almost no economic variables are normally distributed. That means we routinely underestimate tail risk. We do it anyway because that's the only way we can get the math to work.
Almost all of modern economics assumes utility functions with transitive preferences. Testing shows that even the economists who published those theories don't have transit preferences.
I went into a nat science major because animals are cool, and end up being a bunch of statistics and unfun math. I want my money back.
Please don’t lump statistics in with unfun math
It’s usually taught horribly and used poorly, with a large helping of superstition and rituals.
If you actually get to use it in a context where you’re not pulling some predecided methods out of a black box of tools chosen by people who don’t know statistics but want to avoid their publisher asking questions, it’s pretty fun.
You — I like you.
I hated how statistics was taught in my university science course. I did a ton of extra advanced modules when I was doing my A levels before university, so I learned more stats than most people do in high school. This just made the poor statistics taught to biochemists all the more confusing. There were things that they taught that were straight up wrong, and it really made me doubt myself.
I ended up going away and learning statistics in a more thorough way, which ended up being a lot of fun. In a weird way, I'm glad for how grim the stats course was because it led me to a much deeper understanding than I'd have gotten otherwise
ITT: People who have never studied economics incorrectly diagnosing all of its problems
Any "scientific" field that produces Art Laffer is a fraud.
well i seemingly have a very different viewpoint, because the most interesting economics bits are econometrics, essentially data science - the same things all other stem folks use to find the underlying distribution, estimators, their significance, finding the p value. Using this to model whole world is just as wrong as saying all of chem is solved by taking mendelev periodic table. sourely it works, and explains some stuff, but just knowing it does not predict all of chemistry. same way, for example ls-lm model (suppply demand curve) does not explain the whole world, and good economists do not claim they can explain it (sorry for using bad examples, 1 only took 2-3 eco courses).
I always considered economics, philosophy, theology and law as (important) academic subjects which are not sciences.
A PhD is a doctor of philosophy.
Economics is the offspring of math fucking psychology.
By dubbing econ "dismal science" adherents exaggerate;
The "dismal"'s fine - it's "science" where they patently prevaricate.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
