• DesertCreosote@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    We have a fairly solid understanding of an ideal economy. If the economy was run according to current theory, we’d avoid a lot of issues (and find new ones we would address, of course).

    However, the economy is run according to political whims, so most of the economic theory gets thrown out the window. It’s pretty easy to run into major issues when nothing stays consistent for more than a couple years, and the interests of those in charge do not include a stable and sustainable economy.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I might be making the mistake of thinking that economic policy is made by economic scientists.

      We don’t do that with climate, energy, education, or health… So I guess it’s not fair to make the assumption for economic matters either.

      I guess like many other areas of social policy (which… I assume we agree economic policy is) it that I’m very… I don’t know… “Aware”, maybe of the limitation of fields driven primarily by study as opposed to more hands on experimental methods.

      • DesertCreosote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, policy is not made by economists. Which is both good and bad! Ideally you don’t want somebody who only looks at their own corner of the world running things, because they’ll end up sacrificing everything else to make that corner look good.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      “If reality was the thing we made up, the thing we made up would be science” isn’t a great defense. Neoclassical economics is not science, it’s barely even a semi-coherent fairy tale.

      • DesertCreosote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more “if people quit trying to break the system to enrich themselves, and the politicians actually agreed to empower the agencies which are supposed to oversee and regulate large companies and financial institutions, and we actually listened to the data instead of the soundbites that sound good as long as you don’t think about them much, we’d be much better off.”

        Economists are not in charge of anything, politicians and rich people are. And they aren’t incentivized to run things like an economist, because then they would make less money.

        Just because the people with an incentive to blow up the economy to make money end up blowing up the economy to make more money every few years doesn’t mean economics is at fault for that. It’s like saying climate science isn’t real because earlier projections of global warming were more optimistic, when the real reason is the science was suppressed and downplayed by the people making boatloads of money off fossil fuels.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If your argument is “we’d be describing the economy if the economy would be what we described” you’re just demanding reality change to fit the story.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The correct analogy would be if the climate deniers working for Chevron were held up as field experts, and that the institution of climate science stood behind them, then anyone who pointed it out was just told we need to organise agriculture on more +4.5 degree compatible terms.