what's wrong with economics

[DotCommunist]

Spun off from another conversation/thread. This led to a musing from Roadkill

getting this cunt to make the case against rail nationalisation
View attachment 57950

• Ben Southwood is a researcher at the Adam Smith Institute
• Previously economics correspondent for City AM newspaper
• He has a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University
• The Adam Smith Institute is an independent free market think tank known for its work on privatisation and tax reform

At some point there'd be a lot of mileage in a 'what's wrong with economics' thread. Goons like Southwood are a good example of the problem. Granted, only a third of his degree was economics, but you hear the same guff from people whose whole degree was in the subject, and who've come away only dimly aware that neoclassical economics is but one body of thought, who've barely run across Keynesian (except in a very watered down form), Marxian or behaviouralist economics, and whose encounter with either the history of economic thought or - perhaps more seriously - with economic history is fleeting at best.

So where are we at here and why? I admit that I'd be terrified to take on a PPE graduate trained in the arts of debate. I know I'd end up looking stupid and while I am fairly confident in my abilities to point out why it doesn't work from the standard economic viewpoint of modernity...I'm niether skilled in maths or economics. I know enough to be appalled by figures, but not to challenge a fat faced career fool like the above.

 

[8115]

The trickle down theory or, a rising tide lifts all boats as I have seen it described, is a big issue.

In addition (NEF did some work on this a while ago) economics is about material monetary wealth. It doesn't cost things like clean air and an unstressed workforce.

Just a couple of ideas, I think this is a good question.

 

[butchersapron]

Economics

 

[7000Miles]

The trickle down theory or, a rising tide lifts all boats as I have seen it described, is a big issue.

I remember some years ago a famous economist called Thomas Sowell wrote a column asking for someone to give him proof of an economist who advocated the trickle down theory. He never got one. The "trickle down theory" doesn't exist as people think it does.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Economics

And economists.

 

[butchersapron]

The trickle down theory or, a rising tide lifts all boats as I have seen it described, is a big issue.

In addition (NEF did some work on this a while ago) economics is about material monetary wealth. It doesn't cost things like clean air and an unstressed workforce.

Just a couple of ideas, I think this is a good question.

Is that economics?

 

[8115]

I remember some years ago a famous economist called Thomas Sowell wrote a column asking for someone to give him proof of an economist who advocated the trickle down theory. He never got one. The "trickle down theory" doesn't exist as people think it does.

It's not a factor in economics in practice?

 

[Pickman's model]

when your means of production is a pyramid scheme which you want to keep going forever there are going to be difficulties now and again

 

[8115]

Is that economics?

The second bit?

 

[butchersapron]

The second bit?

No, the first bit, But why not, sure the second bit - it, of course, takes account of these things.

 

[peterkro]

Because "economists" practice a belief that the "economy" is a natural process, in that way they are no different from believers of "sky pixies" that have laid down the way we are to live our lives.

 

[8115]

No, the first bit, But why not, sure the second bit - it, of course, takes account of these things.

I think so. It's an idea about wealth and how to raise living standards. I think this falls within the domain of economics.

 

[DotCommunist]

well these crudely drawn things that play on our knowledge of home economics like 'balancing the nations credit card' a la osbourne are clearly appeals to what peoples basic understanding of pay this, owe this, own this, produce this stuff is- you start to get lost (or I do) when futures, currency speculation, this and that index etc become the discourse. It becomes some arcana.

 

[youngian]

I'm neither skilled in maths or economics. I know enough to be appalled by figures, but not to challenge a fat faced career fool like the above.

Knowing about maths is no bar to debating economics, a lot of it is an art form. Civil engineers need maths to produce a bridge and it will work. Economics has so many variables facts change and it becomes an educated punt. And most importantly people don't do what you want them to do unlike bridges. There are some certainties in economics such as a) if you deliberately make poor people poorer they will be even more fucking miserable. Or b) when people like Southwood are listened to some people are going to get richer. And it isn't going to be you.

 

[butchersapron]

I think so. It's an idea about wealth and how to raise living standards. I think this falls within the domain of economics.

That's not what economics is though is it?

 

[7000Miles]

when your means of production is a pyramid scheme which you want to keep going forever there are going to be difficulties now and again

What do you mean?

 

[8115]

That's not what economics is though is it?

What is it then?

 

[butchersapron]

What is it then?

It's not about wealth and how to raise living standards it's about how to justify wealth inequalities and contain living standards through the suggestion that there is a science called economics.

That;'s literally what all it is.

 

[8115]

There is a science called economics. A social science anyway. How is it possible or desirable that there is not?

 

[ska invita]

I think the way economics is taught is an interesting subject
---------
A prominent group of academic economists have backed student protests against neo-classical economics teaching, increasing the pressure on top universities to reform courses that critics argue are dominated by free market theories that ignore the impact of financial crises.

The academics from some of the UK's most prestigious institutions, including Cambridge and Leeds universities, said students were being short-changed by their courses, and they accused higher education funding bodies of being a barrier to reforms.

In a startling attack on the agencies that provide teaching and research grants, they said an "intellectual monoculture" is reinforced by a system of state funding based on journal rankings "that are heavily biased in favour of orthodoxy and against intellectual diversity".

The academics said in a letter to the Guardian that a "dogmatic intellectual commitment" to teaching theories based on rational consumers and workers with unlimited wants "contrasts sharply with the openness of teaching in other social sciences, which routinely present competing paradigms".

They said: "Students can now complete a degree in economics without having been exposed to the theories of Keynes, Marx or Minsky, and without having learned about the Great Depression."
The attack follows protests at Manchester University. Students there, who formed the Post Crash Economics Society, said their courses did little to explain why economists failed to warn about the financial crisis and had too heavy a focus on training students for City jobs.

Earlier this month an international group of economists, backed by the New York-based Institute for New Economic Thinking, pledged to overhaul the economics curriculum and offer universities an alternative course.
At a conference hosted by the Treasury at its London offices, they pledged to have a first-year course ready to teach for the 2014-15 academic year that will include economic history and a broader range of competing theories.
The debate over the future of economics teaching follows several years of debate about the role of academics, especially in the US, in providing the intellectual underpinning for the borrowing and trading binge ahead of the 2008 crash.
http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...dent-protests-neoclassical-economics-teaching
-------
can there be any other subject in academia that is taught with such bias and in contradiction of reality?

 

[butchersapron]

There is a science called ecomonics. A social science anyway. How is it possible or desirable that there is not?

No there is not. What an odd 3rd sentence. There is an ideology that calls itself a social science that is called economics. There are others.

 

[DotCommunist]

What do you mean?

If your aim is to constantly exploit the base of a pyramid (the workers) in order to funnel all wealth to the apex then you are going to get problems when you've squeezed productive capital to the bone- to my admittedly limited understanding the twonks on top have bought into a system that isn't even social democratic style spreading of wealth. Not even the crumbs from the table- hence the privatisation of publicly owned thing (built and maintained and paid for by the workers)

Trickle down then refers to a promise of jam tomorrow when in practise it means they take the lot and we don't even get cheap rail or healthcare.

As far as I can see it this form of private enterprise over state provision has and will leave us dead, dying and grateful for the opportunity to work nil hour contract crap jobs till they let us retire at 69 (when the average age in some areas is 70 for a w/c bod). This is their economics.

 

[8115]

No there is not. What an odd 3rd sentence. There is an ideology that calls itself a social science that is called economics. There are others.

I don't see how economics differs from politics in the way you have described but you would accept a discipline called politics, right?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't see how economics differs from politics in the way you have described but you would accept a discipline called politics, right?

Of course i wouldn't. Would you? Why? You really think that there is a social science called politics?

 

[8115]

Of course i wouldn't. Would you? Why? You really think that there is a social science called politics?

Do you accept any social sciences? I guess I've never really thought about this question.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you accept any social sciences? I guess I've never really thought about this question.

Accept them as what? Have a think.

 

[ska invita]

politics and economics are both considered social sciences. I think the point BA is making is that neither can be a science, as they are hugely influenced by ideology

 

[7000Miles]

If your aim is to constantly exploit the base of a pyramid (the workers)

How are workers being exploited? The employee offers them a wage in return for work, and they accept. Where's the exploitation? Its completely voluntary.

in order to funnel all wealth to the apex

How does it result in this? If I work for someone I make money, and my employer makes money. All the wealth is not all going straight to the top and poor people are left with nothing. Everyone involved benefits

then you are going to get problems when you've squeezed productive capital to the bone- to my admittedly limited understanding the twonks on top have bought into a system that isn't even social democratic style spreading of wealth. Not even the crumbs from the table- hence the privatisation of publicly owned thing (built and maintained and paid for by the workers)

The only productive capital that is in severe danger is oil and some metals in my opinion. If recycling, environmental awareness etc. is obeyed then i don't think there will be a lack of goods or services in the future.

By "bought into a system that isn't even social democratic style spreading of wealth", do you mean we are not taxing them enough? Rich people pay the vast majority of taxes in the UK and just about every country on the planet. The term "spreading the wealth" is a fancy phrase for "stealing people's money" to be honest.

The privatization of services is a good thing in my opinion. Competition increases competitiveness which results in a better service. The government being the only providor of a service usually means excess tax payer money being spent and a poor quality service.

Trickle down then refers to a promise of jam tomorrow when in practise it means they take the lot and we don't even get cheap rail or healthcare.

Who takes the lot? Which group are you talking about?

And there will never be "cheap rail or healthcare", because it is totally tax payer provided for. Other people are forced to spend money on something they may not use, so money is being spent irregardless.

As far as I can see it this form of private enterprise over state provision has and will leave us dead, dying and grateful for the opportunity to work nil hour contract crap jobs till they let us retire at 69 (when the average age in some areas is 70 for a w/c bod). This is their economics.

I disagree with nil hour contract jobs, and low and behold, the government is behind them. The government should stay out of business.

Again, who is "their" when you say "this is their economics"?

 

[Blagsta]

Oh Christ, we got a live one

 

[DotCommunist]

here we go