Why does modern economics treat itself like medicine or physics?

Because economics are applied discipline, like medicine and unlike philosophy.

>Because economics are applied discipline
>this is what econoshits actually believe

Pro tip: almost no one in the real world actually uses any of the economic models proposed by economics. The only ones who actually do are economists themselves

>>1782069

> GDP and PPP graphs are not real
> The Laffner curve does not exist
> Marginal cost graphs are really just scribbles by the analyst's 5-year-old

>>1782069

>Pro tip: almost no one in the real world actually uses any of the economic models proposed by economics

You are correct. However, if one of those economists ends up becoming somebody like Janet Yellen, those models become very important. You are correct in that very few economists are in any position to actually make use of their ideas. They simply teach economics at universities and write books. However, their ideas influence politicians who do have such power, and in some cases, (as in the case of Janet Yellen) they are able to become very powerful people.

>>1782038
Economics is the study of a broken and inherently unstutainable system.
Ecology is more useful for understanding the economy, tbqhwu senpai

>>1782087

>The Laffer curve is typically represented as a graph which starts at 0% tax with zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue at an intermediate rate of taxation, and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate. The shape of the curve is uncertain and disputed.
>The shape of the curve is uncertain and disputed.

Nice 'theory' you got there, econotard. "Yeah, here's this curve that supposedly describes phenomenon X, but we don't whether it actually describes it. By the way, that completely useless piece of info will be 10.000 bucks."

>>1782092
>they are able to become very powerful people

Which is completely unjustified, which means that everything they do will be based on almost nothing.

What you've basically said is that we should follow ways of thinking that are marketed very well. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with my 'uneducated' opinions

>>1782111
This is social sciences genius, economics have the highest level of accuracy and most reliable methods out of all them. It's no physics, but it can't be that.

>>1782111

Economies are vastly complex to put it lightly. It shouldn't surprise you so much that there is some disagreement.

>>1782123

>Which is completely unjustified

We can't appoint some random guy to be chairman of the federal reserve. It has to be somebody who has a very strong economic foundation.

>>1782124
>This is social sciences genius

Yes, with the big difference that economists, for reasons that remain completely unknown, are still taken deeply serious and routinely get put in positions of power, whereas literature teachers usually don't. Based on all the damage they've avoided alone, literature teachers have been vastly more useful to society than economists ever will be

>>1782111

It's an illustration of how tax rates can effect government revenue. You can argue about the slope and where the maximum occurs, but if you want to claim there is no optimum ratio of government taxation ...

Well, good luck with that.

>>1782140
And who are you gonna put into those positions instead, physicists? Social sciences are shit, but we don't have an alternative.

>>1782124

In an introductory level economics course, they'll tell you that economics is the oldest of the arts and the newest of the sciences. Which is their way of saying that there are some things they know to be true, but they're still working out the specifics. Economic models rarely translate 1:1 into real life because there are so many variables to consider. But the basic principles that they demonstrate can still be observed.

>>1782057
It's incredible dangerous to ignore the heredity of theory and suggest that whatever model happens to be in vogue is infallible, especially given the direct application of economics to politics.

>>1782057
So is political theory, yet political scientists have the foresight to recognize the human origins of their models.

>>1782123
>I'll stick with my 'uneducated' opinions

Way to sound like you grew up on a farm in rural Georgia bro

>>1782038

I've been taught the ideas of Smith, RIcardo, Keynes and Friedman. To actually make us read Smith's work would be a stupid waste of time. Also please don't ever list Marx in a list with these people. His ideas are retarded and they are not proper economics. They are purely political in nature.

>>1782165

That's still better than pretending to sound like some kind of misunderstood genius, only to be exposed later on for the con artist you are

>>1782134
Inevitably, it will be someone whose strong economic foundation reflects the interests of the executive government, which in tern reflects the interests of the moneyed class because only members of the moneyed class can become part of the executive government.

>>1782175

>Inevitably, it will be someone whose strong economic foundation reflects the interests of the executive government

Well yeah. That's kind of the point.

>>1782174

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Note: that was my first post in this thread.

I just wanted to point out that taking pride in ignorance is pathetic and plebian as fuck.

>>1782038
It didn't used to be like this, and it isn't like this in Europe.

Throughout the Cold War, as economists became more prominent in the West, governments took an interest in suppressing economic attitudes that could change the status quo too greatly. This included dissident models from the left (the entire doctrine of Marxism) as well as the right (Hayek, Rothbard, even some Friedman).

The transition toward "scientific" education, with no regard for the history of economics or any mention of fallibility, was no accident.

>>1782204

>source: my ass

>>1782172
Politics and economics are inextricable, but you probably haven't read Marx. Why do you think he is somehow distinct from Smith and Ricardo? Do you know what Marx argued?

>>1782172
Marx was basically a Ricardian. retard

>>1782188
When the interests of the executive government are not synonymous with the interests of citizens, this is very, very dangerous.

>>1782212
Especially given that, say, if economics worked in true accordance to Smithsonian model profit margins would be ridiculously low, and large corporations would be non-existant.

>>1782211
t. cuckonomics student

>>1782225
They never are. Welcome to reality.

>>1782172
Marx was just Ricardo applied to class

He was hugely influenced by Smith, too. You know the much-maligned labor theory of value?

First laid out by Smith.

File: 1475681157058.jpg (143KB, 923x867px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 923x867px

>tfw too intelligent for capitalist economics

>>1782232
Right, so we need to fucking do something about this.

>>1782229

Not an argument.

>>1782238
The only people who ever really tried to do that were commies. And they failed. Society and state always function to the benefit of the strong.

>>1782244
>admitting to studying a pseudoscience that can't even admit that theories are fallible

lmao

>>1782038
I think you just went to a crappy university.

Econ is currently the easiest elective in any university, and questioning it therefore puts all our grades in jeopardy. Stop it.

>>1782195
He's just on the defensive because he's never had to think before, or he's baiting us.
>>1782174
What a dangerous way to think, my dude!

>>1782212
>>1782217
>>1782234

Lol I forgot this board has marxists on it.

>>1782212

Economic theory should not be influenced by political thought. The other way around, sure. Marx started with a political opinion and superimposed it on economic theory. Yes I've read Marx. His ideas about class are simply not applicable to the reality of today. The LTV is fundamentally wrong.

>>1782234

Class does not exist. I am both a worker and a capitalist. Both in his ideas on class and in the LTV, we see that Marx is not an economist, but an aspiring politician.

>>1782217

Your mom is basically a Ricardian. retard.

>>1782322
>Class does not exist.
Not anymore it doesn't. What's next, you're gonna tell me how estates of the realm are inaccurate to current social structure?

>>1782335

Marx' opinions relating to class have no relevance to economic theory either way.

>>1782335

You don't understand what he's saying. Pure economics doesn't recognize "class" as a concept. It's a political/social distinction.

>>1782038
>Smith

This is not true, Smith's examples and explanations are so simple and to the point that they are still used verbatim in low level general economics classes like micro/macro. Keynes always gets mentioned at least once, Marx's Das Kapital is always mentioned, as is Ricardo.

I don't know where you took economics, but I'll admit that most higher level classes are dangerous in that they become much more specific to certain schools or models, necessarily, but which is entirely based off the school. Like my friend's conservative private college is 100% Austrian goldbug

>>1782322
Marginalism doesn't actually invalidate LTV though. Price is set by both supply and demand. After the dust has settled on a fungible commodity, the price trends towards the cost of production in a competitive market. Marginalism is just more useful because it still applies even before the invisible hand of the market fixes prices, and it applies to monopolies, and Veblen goods, and brand name goods etc. where the invisible hand doesn't work.

>>1782380
No, he's right. My father is an economist, so I have my own interests in economy, although not to the point of being an economist. When I took econ, they just teach you the stuff, not the people. Smith isn't taught, neither is Kapital. And I suspect even if they were, they're grossly misrepresented, since both of them tend to be misrepresented in the Western world anyways. I know I'm not alone because there was some finance guy on /his/ saying he wanted to learn more about economics by reading these books.

>>1782415
Kapital isn't taught, only mentioned, but that's perfectly fine for a 100 level class, as you need a bit of a context and historical explanation. But Smith most definitely is taught at the Micro/Macro level, maybe not overwhelmingly. But as I said, you will run into at least four explanations or examples taken verbatim from the Wealth of Nations

>>1782444
I'm not saying you need to read Marx or Smith for Econ 101. Smith is not taught as in micro/macro unless you consider saying, without attribution, "supply and demand", "competitive markets", "invisible hand" and "free markets" the four examples taken from Smith. That's not being taught Smith.

>>1782453

>Smith is not taught as in micro/macro unless you consider saying, without attribution, "supply and demand", "competitive markets", "invisible hand" and "free markets" the four examples taken from Smith. That's not being taught Smith

1. Stop assuming that every economics course in the world is the same. Different schools are different.

2. At the school that I went to, Smith was definitely mentioned in Macroeconomics.

>>1782453
Ok, so are you arguing then that schools do not offer appropriate higher level courses on Marx or Smith? Or that Smith should be taught in place of general economics and it's history? Smith may be slightly misrepresented through nitpicking of ideas but as I said it's more of the fact that certain ideas are considered basic framework, and that Smith just happened to describe them in a straight way

>>1782465
>1. Stop assuming that every economics course in the world is the same. Different schools are different.
That's the point. You think Smith is taught as part of basic econ, with at least 4 examples. That's not true. Some classes might mention Smith, but by no means is this universal or even standard.

>2. At the school that I went to, Smith was definitely mentioned in Macroeconomics.
Mentioned is not the same as teaching, and when we talk about a thing in general, it's generally assumed that what is being discussed is the average example, or the lowest common denominator. And mentioned is worse than taught, because chances are if I ask an economics undergrad his thoughts on Smith, he's probably been told Smith is "free markets" and "invisible hand"

>>1782486
>Ok, so are you arguing then that schools do not offer appropriate higher level courses on Marx or Smith?
I'm not really arguing anything. If anything Smith and others, should be taught first as classical market economics, then some Marx on capital and labor, then onto more advanced capitalist economics. The reason this doesn't happen is because Econ 101 is a GE course and it's more useful to skip true classical economics for a watered down version. The problem is this is actually a really shitty foundation for thinking about advanced economics, but it's still used as the entry level course for economists.

>Smith may be slightly misrepresented through nitpicking of ideas but as I said it's more of the fact that certain ideas are considered basic framework, and that Smith just happened to describe them in a straight way
No, the modern representation of Smith's "free markets" and how the "invisible hand" fixes things is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually said in Wealth of Nations. When he is mentioned, it's almost like as an appeal to authority "Smith invented economics (even though we will ignore half his theories like LTV) and said free markets (even thought Smith meant free from economic privilege) mean the government should stop fucking with the economy (even though the government is but one means of interfering with an economy) and the invisible hand fixes everything (even though Smith himself pointed out that it didn't always work because he was writing against things that made it not work) and people deserve as much as they get paid (even though Smith advocated for government policy that helped workers) and also all this means rich people should be taxed less because free markets and invisible hand and shit (even though Smith favored progressive taxation)"

This isn't even a caricature, this is what many people who have heard Smith mentioned but never read Smith actually think of Smith, not including any of the stuff in parenthesis.

>>1782095
DELET THIS

File: 6b4346ee4495bf91026c175870194e07_XL.jpg (56KB, 900x1039px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 900x1039px

>>1782095

OH DAD

WE'RE ALL DEVO

>>1782149
Sure, why not?

Hell, why not put in a landed gentry? Or Party hacks?

>>1782547

I love me some Milton Friedman, but even I'll say that if you heard even half of that from your intro Econ course, your prof was a partisan hack.

>>1782767
I didn't hear that from an econ prof. I have seen stuff like that published in magazine articles. I've brought up Smith in discussions before, and people either don't know him or that was their impression of him, and that's not a mistake. Smith was rebranded by neoliberals as the free market posterboy. It's an example of what lack of nuance does. It's even worse when it comes to Marx because everyone thinks Marx's means income redistribution and making everyone equal.

>>1782038
Anything but Keynesian economics is for hacks.

>>1782875

>Anything but Keynesian economics is for hacks.

Correct.

File: mises.jpg (5KB, 224x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 224x225px

>>1782038
Threadly reminder that Mises was right and scientism is wrong.

Das Kapital is just bog boring explanation on how capitalism makes bucks. I mean wasn't it written so that any moron working in factory in the 19th could read it?

>>1783133
>Das Kapital is just bog boring explanation on how capitalism makes bucks
Yes. If the book was called "The Art of Profiting off the Labor of the Proletariat" and you removed references to communism, and the theory about socialism was to warn you about how to prevent it, it would easily be in the top 100 business books.

>I mean wasn't it written so that any moron working in factory in the 19th could read it?
No, it was written in German, and Germans don't make anything easy to read. The prole version was the Communist Manifesto. Capital was meant to big a big boring academic work.

File: courses-pic-right.jpg (39KB, 246x340px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 246x340px

Got an undergrad in history and economics and I must agree with >>1782204

Centralization was increasingly a favored motif in economic thought and policy after World War I. Economists were appointed to central banks and other institutions which were purported to govern (guide?) markets. Once governments began appointing official economists, you can imagine how the academic climate shifted. It was then to be believed that we could actually, responsibly adjust an economy. Clarity be damned.

I prefer reading banking history from the messy, later Victorian days well after the railroad but before the turn of the century. There's more humility to be found in the words of a Walter Bagehot or David Ricardo than in a Stanley Fischer.