Is Economics a Science or Pseudoscience?

Economics is at the forefront of almost every political election. It is fundamental to our society and greatly affects our lives whether we want it to or not. It is also phrased as a science where the expert knows what they are doing and can make reliable predictions about policies. But too often this is not the case. Does this mean economics isn’t a science or is it just bad economists that are ruining it for everyone? In this video, I discuss this topic.
- References -
Articles discussing if economics is a science
[1] www.investopedia.com/ask/answ...
[2] www.huffpost.com/entry/is-eco...
[3] economicquestions.org/economi...
[4] archive.nytimes.com/opinionat...
[5] Nobel prize in economics written article: www.theguardian.com/business/...
[6] Article about the negatives of economics www.forbes.com/sites/johnthar...
-- Socials ---
Twitter: / broadwayphysics
Discord: / discord
Publications: scholar.google.com.au/citatio...
#economics #science #nobelprize

[@Nightscape_]

I left the social sciences after fifteen years to change careers from organizational psychology to physics as I was frustrated being the only real scientist in the room full of PhD's. I have seriously met sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and economists with PhD's that could not even define critical thinking or the scientific method. The closest they usually come to real science is cherry picking statistical data to fit their biased models.

[@CosmoShidan]

​@@Anonymoose66G Anthropology is useful because it allows us to understand and study human cultures. However, the only reason why the soft sciences seem useless is because of capitalism, which is a pseudoscientific economic model.

[@JimmyMcBimmy]

Not really a problem of the social sciences themselves, if we're being honest -- more an issue with postmodern thinking and relativism infiltrating culture. Kind of like how SOME "hard scientists" still pursue failed ideas like perpetual motion or anti-climate change agendas. These are individual flaws, not subject-based.

[@millenialmusings8451]

⁠@@JimmyMcBimmywtf is post modern thinking and relativism? Can you describe in simple English?

[@nevadataylor]

Science is testable, demonstrable, and evidence based. Economics is belief-based financial religion.

[@ice9055]

You're basing that on qualitative theories and analysis rather than quantitative models and theories that make up econometrics. That was the defining part of what makes political economy different from neoclassical economics. To the contrary to popular thought, there's no clear line between economics, political science, and sociology which means belief will always be present. That's why you need to prove yourself wrong by applying the scientific method to create a theory and a model that is testable, repeatable, and simple for anyone who wants to prove it.

[@nevadataylor]

​@@ice9055 Maybe you need to take another look? The similarities are immeasurable. Religion and capitalism are BOTH belief-based systems. BOTH are systems of control and oppression! BOTH are systems that require faith! BOTH are systems that give us masters to have us serve! BOTH are systems heavily dependent on war to spread their beliefs! BOTH are systems that cannot address the problems of that which they were created for! BOTH are systems that require brainwashing of people, especially at young ages! BOTH are systems to extract wealth from the bottom and give to the top! BOTH are systems that force us to live our lives based on lies, and unproven garbage! BOTH are systems that have us relinquish our responsibilities to others, in the way of scapegoating! BOTH are systems chuck full of ignorant biases! BOTH are systems that divide us into classes! BOTH are systems guilty of genocide! BOTH are systems guilty of misogyny! BOTH are systems that are highly detrimental to society, and our environment! BOTH are systems that permit and reward the control, manipulation, and hoarding of an ever-so-vast amount of wealth! BOTH are systems that hate being analyzed by Science! And lastly, NEITHER are founded in any kind of Science what-so-ever! I noticed way back in the 80's, a striking eerie resemblance between the love the capitalists hold for capitalism, mimicked the same love the religious hold for their religions. My take-away from decades of debate, the biggest dilemma humanity has continually faced, has ALWAYS been belief-based systems vs Science/reality. Of course capitalism and christianity are both belief-based systems, and therefore chuck full of ignorant biases. Both demand allegiance in order to control us and force us to live in a certain way, even if against our wishes, again all without a shred of evidence as to why we should be living their way in the first place. Imperialism is merely the modern Crusades! Look at christianity for example, it flourished mostly by the sword, same as Imperialism, it killed off those who do not agree, just like Imperialism. Both religion and capitalism have pretty much been proven to be 100% BS now via Science, and in hindsight, they have plagued the world over its existence, and have fkt up quite a number of people into an unrealistic belief/view of life. Take a look at our economic system, based completely on faith by its followers, and if you don't want to follow the absurd belief structure, you get exterminated as we have seen time and time again, by how Imperialism makes other countries conform to our messed up ways. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHauhomcm5yZgs0 However, capitalism is MUUUUUCH more detrimental to our survival, as depicted in the video. Hope you watch it all, as it talks about all the dictators of Imperialism. Basing our lives on capitalism is, as the scientific data shows, driving us towards our own extinction. Its MUCH worse than the damages caused by religion too. Money is a powerful drug. The habit is next to impossible to kick when consumed in such high doses. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHi5iGysf5xqac0 How is it that people cannot see the symmetry? Banks are churches. Bankers are priests. Wealth is heaven. Poverty is hell. Rich people are saints. Poor people are sinners. Commodities are blessings. Anti-capitalists are Atheists, AND MONEY IS GOD! It's truly amazing to me, the level of bullshit belief that has been bestowed upon us from our ancestors. Now, if only we could do away with the 2nd biggest mass delusional; barbaric, unfounded, archaic, anti-Science, destructive, bias, belief-based economic religion we must do away with! So no, I disagree. There is no belief in Science. Its not crapitalism that makes buildings stand taller, cars go faster, give us longer lifespans, etc... ALL of this comes from Science, yet we continually see all the brainwashed capitalist minions using Science to justify capitalism. If its Science at the helm of everything good under capitalism, then how about we give up the bullshit belief system, and just let Science handle our economics? The problem is the idiot economic believers among us. www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/13/economics-science-wang/

[@nevadataylor]

@@ice9055 ​Maybe you need to take another look? The similarities are immeasurable. Religion and capitalism are BOTH belief-based systems. BOTH are systems of control and oppression! BOTH are systems that require faith! BOTH are systems that give us masters to have us serve! BOTH are systems heavily dependent on war to spread their beliefs! BOTH are systems that cannot address the problems of that which they were created for! BOTH are systems that require brainwashing of people, especially at young ages! BOTH are systems to extract wealth from the bottom and give to the top! BOTH are systems that force us to live our lives based on lies, and unproven garbage! BOTH are systems that have us relinquish our responsibilities to others, in the way of scapegoating! BOTH are systems chuck full of ignorant biases! BOTH are systems that divide us into classes! BOTH are systems guilty of genocide! BOTH are systems guilty of misogyny! BOTH are systems that are highly detrimental to society, and our environment! BOTH are systems that permit and reward the control, manipulation, and hoarding of an ever-so-vast amount of wealth! BOTH are systems that hate being analyzed by Science! And lastly, NEITHER are founded in any kind of Science what-so-ever! How is it that people cannot see the symmetry? Banks are churches. Bankers are priests. Wealth is heaven. Poverty is hell. Rich people are saints. Poor people are sinners. Commodities are blessings. Anti-capitalists are Atheists, AND MONEY IS GOD! So no, I disagree. There is no belief in Science. Its not crapitalism that makes buildings stand taller, cars go faster, give us longer lifespans, etc... ALL of this comes from Science, yet we continually see all the brainwashed capitalist minions using Science to justify capitalism. If its Science at the helm of everything good under capitalism, then how about we give up the bullshit belief system, and just let Science handle our economics? The problem is the idiot economic believers among us. www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/13/economics-science-wang/

[@imaresurcher]

economics is fundamentally different to science. economics is a political field and as such it has corruption throughout it, there is no way to do economics without a political agenda. in fact every single school of economics was founded with a political agenda in mind. the classical school was founded to advocate for minimal gov intervention. the neoclassical school was founded to protect the interests of the landowning richest in society. the georgist school pushing back against that at the time had their own political agenda, it just happened to serve the majority of society. the marxists, the austrians, etc all politically motivated. the reason why economics is so all over the place with no coherent theories is because of this. economics should still be called "political economy" as it once was. it is now pretending to be a detached neutral arbiter of the truth, when in reality it is used as a political tool to justify what those in power want to do for whatever agenda they have at the time. i like MMT because i see these economists describing what is actually happening in society. what is money, how gov spending actually functions, the gov relationship to central banks, how taxation actually works and what it actually does. they are taking what they find to be accurate from the other schools and building upon it with the study of how these institutions function in reality today. and yes they have a political agenda too. it's all about figuring out which political agenda is actually describing reality and which is actually serving a special interest with the pretense of describing reality. they are supposedly unbiased "scientists", yet mainstream economics is always seeming to justify policies which serve the rich at the expense of the rest of society. such a coincidence. i wonder why...

[@nevadataylor]

Science is testable, demonstrable, and evidence based. Economics is belief-based financial religion.

[@mukundm6]

I fail to understand why every subject has to fall either in a "science" or a "pseudoscience" camp. Economics is just a tool that economists use for capturing and explaining what is happening around them. The perspective might vary from one economist to other which is why its difficult to draw universally applicable principles and derive laws like it is done in Physics. It still uses well constructed research methodologies and more than often, sophisticated mathematical analysis, to develop Economic theories. I think the beauty of Economics lies in the fact that it has the ability to use best of multiple methods (qualitative and quantitative) to explain what has happened and what will continue to happen until something changes. It takes into account historical events, social factors, cultural factors, link those, and then develop models which can explain a phenomena at least for some time in future. All of this requires a person to have deductive reasoning skills and training in mathematics to produce something fruitful. Therefore, getting into debate regarding which camp it falls in, is somewhat futile.

[@nevadataylor]

"I fail to understand why every subject has to fall either in a "science" or a "pseudoscience" camp."

[@mukundm6]

@@nevadataylor didn't make a lot of sense but ok :)

[@PragmaticOptimist]

Science can be used as a tool, but it's not fundamentally one and shouldn't "change" between different people. What makes science "science", is that it is objective. You can literally change "economics" to "astrology" in your text and, sadly, it still would be correct. Astrology also uses statistics and "scientific" methods and they also say it's a tool for them to understand the world and make predictions. I'm currently on my masters in economics and it's very distressing to me to not have a comprehensive view of economics, a single unifying theory for the economy. Neoclassicists say one thing, marxists an other. Then there's the "rational man" -don't make me laugh. Such black and white depictions of people and society that produce unrealistic results. I am starting to think economics can never actually build itself to be a science, because, fundamentally, it's a made-up thing by people (just like astrology).

[@rajnz]

If the author gave his comments/feedback to the comments it would be interesting. Also if he made another video on whether Climate change is science. Not that it uses science, but is it falsifiable, if so how exactly?

[@nevadataylor]

One only needs to be aware of the different critters and insects in the yard to know that climate change is happening. Were I am located we are getting new species coming north every summer that we hadnt had ever before.

[@068067]

It seems much like physics to me especially if you consider energy a kind of resource. I recognize the fact that in physics, the control usually doesn’t have a soul and makes decisions contrary to logic and more over the ability to do so. But at the same time there are economic policies that have predictable outcomes. So far in my life they have yet to be disproven on a scale that large which I think matters.

[@ericritchie6783]

Isn't considering "energy" a resource just commodifying literally everything? In that everything is a form of energy. Seems very political disposition indeed, a clear step removed from the straight observation of energy and its states of being.

[@068067]

@@ericritchie6783 it’s not political it realistic. Not every celestial body can be the same size and mass even if you feel badly about that. Sure it’s reductive but it doesn’t make it not true. Saying you can’t print money to make more money is reductive. Also true.

[@ericritchie6783]

@@068067 ... Realistic as in mere conjecture you mean. Size and mass of celestial body's clearly varies immensely, which has nothing to do with the point at hand, its just seems like a statement to try invoke "rhetorical gravitas" or something to tack onto a "disposition."

[@068067]

@@ericritchie6783 I think You’re thinking about it too hard

[@ericritchie6783]

@@068067 Not that hard, just saying what it comes across like. How about one of these economic policies with predicable outcomes then, we could consider some counterfactuals.

[@samuelmatz]

Hey. Consider Thomas Sowell. You will not go wrong

[@historicalfacts7609]

Chinese academy of sciences institute of psychology

[@301stface3]

Interesting how op is trying to answer if economics is a science, but fail to give an acceptable definition of economics. Economics as a science can't be normative, like physics and chemistry have nothing to said about how we should treat matter given a set of morals or a philosophy, at best it's describe how thing would be given a set of conditions, but that's all. You don't understand economics and you don't understand what science is, maybe should make videos about other things.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

There is no Nobel Prize in Economics. The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was created by some Swedish Bank in the 1960s not Alfred Nobel. Another piece of evidence of how phony economics is. How many automobiles have American consumers trashed since Sputnik? Where is the data on that depreciation. They were added to GDP. Economists don't say much about Net Domestic Product, NDP. They do not want to advertise that they cannot do algebra. Economists talk about employment but they don't say much about planned obsolescence. NDP = GDP - Dcap (official economic delusion) NDP = GDP - (Dcap + Dcon) (reality) Dcap == Depreciation of Capital Goods Dcon == Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods GDP == Grossly Distorted Propaganda How much intelligence do economists have if they cannot solve a middle school algebra problem in 70 years.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Economists cannot tell the difference between a banana and an air conditioner. Physics cannot tell a machine that is a capital good from a machine that is a consumer good. So if an air conditioner is a consumer good then it is just like a banana and the depreciation is irrelevant.

[@ice9055]

I'm assuming you still maintain these views eight months later. Let's take this one at a time. It doesn't matter if Albert Nobel as much as the process matters and who administers the ceremony. Today, it's administered by the Nobel Foundation and presented by a Swedish academy focused on the sciences. None of the other social sciences have Nobel prizes, but that still wouldn't determine their pseudoscience. Alfred Nobel had to create categories, so creating them as time goes on is the expected result. In Macroeconomics 101 which I learned in middle school, you cover the topics of NDP and depreciation as GDP grows, stagnates, and decreases all the time as its counted yearly. Besides Algebra in just a 101 class, you'll need calculus, linear algebra, probability theory, and statistics to get through a Bachelors degree. Then there's graduate level that takes more of a statistical stance the other social sciences and all physical sciences does as well. Your point on planned obsolescence is odd. It's an economic issue as much as it's a political issue; the former analyzes it systemically to see why people do it and its effects, and the latter tries to make it illegal. Again in 101, you learn about oligopolies which naturally lead you to planned obsolescence and how far you study it will depend on the case examples, the type of textbook, and additional resources. Your example of the banana and an air conditioner is odd since you don't take into account personal utility or the type of goods. This is what an economist would do as most people do when making decisions before Economics was an academic field. An air conditioner is a durable good and can be a public good as opposed to a single banana could be a normal, consumer, an inferior good depending on the context. Depreciation would apply to both as everything has a lifespan and it'll affect both nominal gross domestic product and gross national product per year. Please take the time to learn about something before commenting on it. Your frustrations are understandable, but acting as if you know anything based on anger leads you to something like this. There are many 101 videos I could recommend in your educational journey.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@ice9055 As far as I am concerned you are just talking BS. The Laws of Physics cannot tell the difference between a machine that is a Capital Good from machine that is a Consumer Good. Both get added to GDP. Both wear out. Economists hardly talk about Net Domestic Product anyway. Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles purchased by American consumers since Sputnik? Washing machines? Air Conditioners? I noticed that economists could not do algebra correctly in 1976. They have not changed since then. How many cars have Americans trashed since then? There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the US in 1994. Now Americans are having an automobile debt crisis about the over priced junk. I asked a PhD economist to explain how an automobile engine worked back in the 90s. He couldn't even start, but he drove a white SUV. So you can believe that I am talking BS if you want. I do not care. Anybody that wants to can look up the Net Domestic Product equation and wonder about Consumer Depreciation.

[@ice9055]

@@psikeyhackr6914 There you go again. You're comparing a physical science to a social science which is what's causing your problem. That's why people made the terms hard science and soft science to discern the two. In the interdisciplinary field of econophysics, those physicists don't use natural laws but rather use models to help solve economic questions. Natural laws are almost non-existent in any social science as that would mean they could be separated from humans and don't change over time. They do talk about it as that's an important part that you interact with in every stage of economics between your associates to your doctoral degree. To the people who count it, academia usually does it alongside the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and every country's version of the U.S. Department of Commerce and its Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data is there but you don't care to study it as it certainly does take time to do and would disprove your notion of no one calculating something they learn in Macroeconomics 101. If an economist can't do Algebra, then they're not an economist as they naturally can't graduate with any degree in it as you would fail every mathematics course if you can't excel in one of the simpler subfields. Even if you met an economist who couldn't, that shouldn't characterize the entire field. What you're using is just anecdotal evidence. The car question has no relevance. You should expect that when asking a Professor in a field unrelated to mechanical engineering a question about it then they can't answer. That's something you would expect as they specialize in it enough to have a doctoral degree in it. It's the same thing if you ask a physicist about geology or neurobiology. No matter the answer, it's still irrelevant and doesn't magically disprove a field. I wouldn't expect a sociologist to answer a question on biophysics, yet sociology is still a fundamental social science. Another problem you have is dismissing everything and repeating the same thing that's already been covered. If you want to be close-minded and use the invincible ignorance fallacy, then just say that but don't become arrogant as a result. Time will pass and you'll be on the other end if you're like this throughout your entire life.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@ice9055 You can disassociate economics from reality all you want. It does not stop machines from wearing out. When your car breaks down while driving to work, give it a lecture on economics.

[@FlorianBased]

You can kinda disprove economics just by investigating the assumption that all people are rational actors and inherently, biologically even, want to maximize their wealth. Both are false, people want to survive and thrive and care for their families which only in capitalism is simplified by the money in their bank account. And through that simplification alone the whole model becomes inaccurate. Economics is not beyond repair, but without the inclusion of anthropology and psychology they will remain a capitalist business school and not a science to be researched in universiy.

[@gps9679]

This is completely true. Actually, the psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman tried to put in perspective wether or not the neoclassical approach was real, and they found out that only a third of the people interviewed were guided by their own selfish interest

[@palm0018]

I think it's not assumption. It's came from observation.

[@sakarikaristo4976]

@FlorianBased I think the statement "all people are rational actors and inherently, biologically even, want to maximize their wealth" is a misunderstanding. I could not find that statement anywhere in economics textbooks. Nor do people speak in such way. The super-rational, selfish wealth maximizing homo economicus is not necessarily what Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem is about. It may surprise you, but it is a theorem, which means the conclusion is derived from its axioms. It does not say that humans in real life are super-rational, selfish wealth maximizing homo economicus type. It states that if all the axioms are satisfied then there is an utility function s.t expected utility derived from action or probabilistic event A is more than expected utility from B iff A is preferred to B. Insight into human behavior is limited, as the theorem neither knows human preferences nor probabilities related to actions or events.

[@ice9055]

This doesn't disprove anything. What you're covering is just a basic assumption that will create models that come after and have those become adaptable due to circumstances at play. Rationality in economics is completely different as one wants to maximize their own happiness or meet their current needs and wants - not wealth per se. Assumptions are made all the time within political science, psychology, sociology, geography, and anthropology as the foundation for a theory that also has to be simple and testable throughout the ages. When talking about humans you're not looking for universal laws or believing everyone adheres to certain characteristics, rather it's about how humans act and the patterns that come from that. To help with these patterns, statistics and economic theories become econometrics and help with applying the scientific method in a social sense in post-undergraduate studies.

[@garbonomics]

Hardly pseudoscience. In fact, quite a bit of economics is very good at explaining not only what will happen but also what should be done to achieve the desired result. The Industrial Revolution was a result of a handful of countries adopting economic principles laid out by economists like Adam Smith. Without such economic contributions, we certainly would not have seen the economic progress we've seen. Where it fails is in predicting very long-term outcomes, which is usually beyond economists' purview.

[@rajnz]

Very interesting. You are too cautious/magnanimous toward economics. It is clearly not a science. The problem lies in including instrumentalism as a science. Instrumentalism assumes that ideas are useful instruments based on how effective they are at explaining and predicting phenomena. That is fundamentally wrong. If you get the right answer with the wrong assumptions in maths, your answer is still wrong. You will get another similar problem wrong. It has no corrective or predictive power. Far more useful is to apply the correct assumptions and reasoning to a problem. That way even if you get the answer wrong, anyone can go back, follow the assumptions and logic, and trace and correct the mistake. Instrumentalism is what leads to pseudoscience and ideology, where people cling to their ideas despite evidence to the contrary. Global warming/Climate change is another example of a pseudo-scientific theory that is directly adversely affecting our lives through economic decisions based on the "theory". The trick used is to spread the idea of "catastrophic" climate change, where the idea is that humans are changing the climate through modern production and use of energy and this poses an existential threat to humanity and thus justifies any measure purported to avert this assumed tragedy. You then come up with wrong solutions to a manufactured problem.

[@jamespower5165]

What exactly do you know about climate science to make these grand claims? Do you understand the history of the subject? Do you understand why hard scientists back the claims of climate scientists? Do you know what a real number is? And on the other hand, do you not realize that at the other end of the spectrum, the AI revolution which will quickly eat up a large proportion of white collar jobs as well and in a world that has turned its back on free trade, economies will not expand quickly enough to make up the difference anyway. And competition with China means you can't shut down AI research anyway. So laissez-faire economics are doomed anyway and economic reorganization is basically inevitable anyway

[@rajnz]

@@jamespower5165 Hi James I probably don't know as much about Global Warming/ Climate Change as you do, but I do know enough about the history of Global Warming to know that all of the pioneers thought that Global Warming was a good thing and may help stave off our periodic Ice ages. I also know that the warm periods we had during our present interglacial, the Holocene, have been periods of prosperity and the cold periods, those of famine, misery, and disease. I also know that we have been warming since the little ice age and during this period the human population has exploded and so has our food production and prosperity. You still have not answered my original question, is Climate Change/Global Warming a science? If so what would it take to falsify it? The basic premise is that if atmospheric CO2 goes up by so much, Global temperatures should go up by such amount. If they can't get this fundamental prediction right then what confidence should we have in the rest of their dire predictions?

[@jamespower5165]

​@@rajnz Climate CHANGE is not a science, it is a prediction made by climate SCIENCE which is a science Just like the study of physics helps us understand why the sun will probably rise in the east 25 years later on January 1st. Now that prediction won't be falsified until January 1st 25 years later. But if I tell you don't bet your house on the sun not rising 25 years later you should probably listen. And of course what we always get is probabilistic predictions which are not falsified per se by any event but rendered less and less likely by different events. Of I tell you don't bet your shirt on flipping coins and landing 20 heads in a row, that's good advice. Doesn't mean you can't get twenty heads in a row. Smoking causes cancer. Doesn't mean every smoker's going to get cancer, just that a much higher proportion of smokers will. The fact that such straightforward and we'll understood are left out of many of these climate change denials means that this is not even done with sincere intentions. It's like the arguments a contrary twelve year old makes

[@jamespower5165]

​@@rajnz ​​@rajnz Climate SCIENCE is a science. The change by human action is a prediction made by that science Just like the study of physics helps us understand why the sun will probably rise in the east 25 years later on January 1st. Now that prediction won't be falsified until January 1st 25 years later. But if I tell you don't bet your house on the sun not rising 25 years later you should probably listen. And of course what we always get is probabilistic predictions which are not falsified per se by any event but rendered less and less likely by different events. Of I tell you don't bet your shirt on flipping coins and landing 20 heads in a row, that's good advice. Doesn't mean you can't get twenty heads in a row. Smoking causes cancer. Doesn't mean every smoker's going to get cancer, just that a much higher proportion of smokers will

[@imaresurcher]

@@rajnz i can recommend potholer54's youtube channel, he's a journalist covering climate change science. i havent studied in depth myself since university but yes theyre saying if greenhouse gases increase they predict warmer temperatures on average along with more extreme weather. as with any correlational effect in order to falsify it you would have to do the studies and show that it's not happening and it's not correlating. the abundance of studies show this correlation, and so scientific consensus follows. obviously weather and climate is an incredibly complex system and so any predictions they make are not going to be as accurate as we'd like them to be. as a result scientists err on the side of caution with predictions, which does give skeptics the chance to say "see you said it'd be way worse by now so we dont need to worry bout it".

[@Eristtx]

What are you trying to prove? The whole part about economics being a bad tool for making predictions - what's the point if the very opening definition contains the phrase "social science"? Maybe it's a language barrier on my part - is it an attempt to refute the notion that economics is a "science" and prove that it really is a "social science" after all? Then the whole conclusion is almost quaint - I mean the part about ideology, that it's supposed to serve the people, and that "efficiency is king" is not in the interest of the people. This is just speculation on my part - but I suspect that by "economics" you associate some crazy Republicans who claim "the market will solve everything". Except that's not what economics claims - at least the mainstream one that builds on a synthesis of classical and Keynesian economics. For the record - Democrats are not much better off in terms of the "truth" of their economic theory. And that's the problem - realistically, today's economics is outside the mainstream ideology. So everyone takes what they can get away with.

[@jaysnehpandey7089]

Really want more discussion in context of both your comment and this video

[@jamespower5165]

The problem is that it doesn't matter what economists admit. What really matters is that their equations are still based on simplifications. It doesn't matter your admitting you are using bad assumptions if you continue to use them. And it's not about Democrats and Republicans. It's a question of whether economists are able to give us any definite facts to shape policies or not

[@Eristtx]

@@jamespower5165 The mere fact that something is based on a "simplification" does not mean that such an equation is invalid. It is often the only way to model certain situations. A comparison with vitamins comes to mind - we can't mimic a natural vitamin, but we can identify what substances are essential. You can't model something without simplification - after all, simplification is the definition of a model. Public opinion research is done on the basis of a representative sample, a weather forecast, a static model of a building, etc. Economics is based on the individual decisions of countless human beings, which complicates many things. Many economic models are based on the so-called "homo economicus". These are perfectly rational people who act in an attempt to maximize their utility. This approach has its limitations, and of course we need to know when it fails. But it has value in itself - on the basis of it, economics has been able to identify situations where the free market environment fails and state intervention is needed (so-called "market failure"). In practice, for example, the "Tragedy of the commons". Then there are models or economic trends that try to correct the limitations of "homo economicus" - for example, behavioural economics. But there is no disguising the fact that the current state of economics is not perfect, and in its application it is necessary to know the limits of current knowledge. As to whether economics can provide guidance for policy-making, of course it can. Although there is no economic "theory of everything", even the current state of knowledge gives us guidance in many situations. So we know that if we have a housing crisis, then we cannot solve it by capping prices, because that will only make the problem worse. We know that it is worth promoting education for all, we know that health care should be universally accessible, we know that it is not good for society if some companies have a monopoly, etc. But in more complex situations this is already a problem - for example, in theory inflation is a simple phenomenon that can be expressed by the Equation of Exchange. But in practice, we don't know the exact amount of variables, and at the same time, any action we take will affect countless other relationships. Nevertheless, basic recommendations can be formulated, and it is also possible to identify what not to do (for example, it is really not a good idea to start cutting interest rates when inflation is high - see Turkey). Economics is not mathematics or physics. And many general rules of thumb fail under certain constellations. It certainly needs to be approached with caution, taking into account that recommendations are more about probability than certainty. Unfortunately, until human behavior can be captured in one elegant equation, economics will always be more complicated.

[@imaresurcher]

@@Eristtx economics is fundamentally a political field and as such it has corruption throughout it, there is no way to do economics without a political agenda. in fact every single school of economics was founded with a political agenda in mind. the classical school was founded to advocate for minimal gov intervention. the neoclassical school was founded to protect the interests of the landowning richest in society. the georgist school pushing back against that at the time had their own political agenda, it just happened to serve the majority of society. the marxists, the austrians, etc all politically motivated. the reason why economics is so all over the place with no coherent theories is because of this. economics should still be called "political economy" as it once was. it is now pretending to be a detached neutral arbiter of the truth, when in reality it is used as a political tool to justify what those in power want to do for whatever agenda they have at the time. i like MMT because i see these economists describing what is actually happening in society. what is money, how gov spending actually functions, the gov relationship to central banks, how taxation actually works and what it actually does. they are taking what they find to be accurate from the other schools and building upon it with the study of how these institutions function in reality today. and yes they have a political agenda too. it's all about figuring out which political agenda is actually describing reality and which is actually serving a special interest with the pretense of describing reality. they are supposedly unbiased "scientists", yet mainstream economics is always seeming to justify policies which serve the rich at the expense of the rest of society. such a coincidence. i wonder why...

[@nevadataylor]

Science is testable, demonstrable, and evidence based. Economics is belief-based financial religion.