Bourgeois economist basically admits that neo-classical economics is pseudoscience.

[FireIceTalon]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/economists...-they-good

Yowzers. Looks like they are starting to sing quite a different tune' than they were in 1990, surprise surprise

"Economists today primarily serve the needs of powerful interests at the expense of society in general" - or az our buddy Karl said, "Da rulin' ideaz o' any age are da ideaz o' da rulin' classssss"

Tis waz a plezzure 2 wotch dees.

Neoclassical ekonomiks is dee "Intelleegent Dezign" of ekonomik teory. Hehe.

[LemmingofGlory]

Tis waz a plezzure 2 wotch dees.

Neoclassical ekonomiks is dee "Intelleegent Dezign" of ekonomik teory. Hehe.

When I hear something compared to ID, I think of a model that is unfalsifiable, untestable, and non-predictive; that is a Just-so Story. I don't get the impression that this is the case. The assumptions of neoclassical economics have come under scrutiny; I even remember a radio story recently about a study that specifically countered the "People act rationally" assumption. The predictive quality of the model seems (at least to me) something that can be assessed. If the model is bad, I would sooner celebrate a superior model than I would dance on the grave of a poor one. But since you live your life as our local Marxist soothsayer, I see where you're coming from.

Economics is no more dastardly than nuclear physics, even though our understanding of these has led world leaders to drop nukes and CEOs to become Ferengi. My understanding is that economists (and, incidentally, meteorologists) have the difficult job of attempting to create models of chaotic systems; I don't think that their goal is to sit around stroking cats while cackling at the wealth gap they've colluded with politicians to engineer. Solid economic models could be useful to everyone, not just exploitative Ferengi min/maxers.

Maybe you could collaborate with Studio Ghibli someday to make a "Grave of the Invisible Hand" about two orphaned children struggling to survive as their village is destroyed by neoclassical economics. I think neoclassical economics would be depicted as a pokemon sort of creature, maybe a ghost/psychic deceased Meowth. The story would need some delicate writing to ensure that tears will jerk in the right ways when you see the children trying to use scrounged change to buy things in an economic climate of runaway inflation while being unaware of the classism they experience as scavengers with no name, no house, and no honor. ;_;

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

It isn't so much that it is or isnt unfalsifiable, untestable, or non-predictive (very clearly it does make predictions, however wrong they usually are, and indeed it is falsifiable as the last 30 or so years have demonstrated in spades), but that its premise is ideological in nature. For economists that use this framework, ideology generally trumps science. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, this is enough to discredit the theory or framework entirely.

Also soothsayer is a peculiar word to describe me. I don't think of myself as some social 'fortune teller'. I view myself as someone trying to understand and make sense of the world we live in, and the social/structural forces that drive and shape it. In my opinion, Marxism is an excellent, useful tool for doing this.

[eppie]

Economics is no more dastardly than nuclear physics, even though our understanding of these has led world leaders to drop nukes and CEOs to become Ferengi. My understanding is that economists (and, incidentally, meteorologists) have the difficult job of attempting to create models of chaotic systems; I don't think that their goal is to sit around stroking cats while cackling at the wealth gap they've colluded with politicians to engineer. Solid economic models could be useful to everyone, not just exploitative Ferengi min/maxers.
-Lem

Well...economics tries to predict things, but always with a goal and an ideology in mind. And usually this goal is the goal of western rich people.

The fact that market economy can't work forever is that it doesn't take into account costs for keeping our planet livable. It uses as a given that some things are just for the taking, which is of course not true. Nowadays there are economists that play with this fact, but any reasonably intelligent person should have seen this 40 years ago......so for sure a famous economist.
Why didn't they see this? Or maybe they saw it but they had other interests at the time.

Please never compare economics with physics (or meteorology for that matter).



I would like to see more work done on questions like:
-how can we let pay people the real cost of objects and services?
-why is a cyclic economy so bad and can we do something about it?*


(I am not an economist and don't read much literature so it might be that some nice work has been done on this)

---

For economists that use this framework, ideology generally trumps science.

Yes indeed. Even though often this ideology seems invisible.
Things like ''we always need economic growth''.
'''or we can predict people's action and we don't want to take into account how companies and states try to influence people's actions and thoughts''

[FireIceTalon]

Yea. And whenever the economy crashes, the economists are left scratching their heads asking "what went wrong?" Nothing went wrong - booms and busts are an INHERENT feature of the capitalist system, as Marx accurately observed some 150 years ago. But of course, they would never admit this for the obvious political implications, despite it being proved as empirical fact throughout capitalisms' entire history, because it would shatter the fragile ideological framework which NCE stands upon. In this sense, economists become trapped in a false dilemma - during times of "booms", capitalism is infallible. When the bust comes, disproving the notion of infallibility, they throw out the scapegoat of their choosing or whatever is trendy at the time (right now Big Gubbament seems the most popular scapegoat for capitalisms failures), as if the bust isn't inherent to the system. So, the sciences themselves are shaped by capitalism, so that economists never even question the actual role capitalism has. The whole framework of Neoclassical economics is that it is designed to 'navigate' the system, rather than seeking a true scientific understanding of capitalism.

Marxian economics > Neoclassical economics. And that is because the former is grounded in a rigorous, scientific, honest and empirical observation of how capitalism actually works, and not in ideology. Marxian economics of course isn't perfect, and like any scientific inquiry, it has had to make readjustments or hypothesis when the material conditions do not reflect assumptions. But its framework is still very sound, and it has a far better track record than NCE could ever hope to; yet due to the ideological outgrowths of capitalist psychology that are necessary to sustain its own existence, Marxian economics naturally HAS TO be treated as a heterodox (regardless of how useful or accurate it is). Or, more simply put, NCE is 'economic idealism', and Marxian economics is 'economic materialism'.

[Hammerskjold]

Maybe you could collaborate with Studio Ghibli someday to make a "Grave of the Invisible Hand" about two orphaned children struggling to survive as their village is destroyed by neoclassical economics. I think neoclassical economics would be depicted as a pokemon sort of creature, maybe a ghost/psychic deceased Meowth. The story would need some delicate writing to ensure that tears will jerk in the right ways when you see the children trying to use scrounged change to buy things in an economic climate of runaway inflation while being unaware of the classism they experience as scavengers with no name, no house, and no honor. ;_;

-Lem

The capitalist borgias elite would never let that happen. And 'collaborating' is a funny way to spell 'single handedly saving anime, animation in general, and humanity from itself'.

In any case Studio Ghibli is a hollow shell of it's former self, now that Mizayaki is retiring, again. I have it on good authority the real cause for the man's retirement was failed economic pseudo science propagated by neo classical economists. It's the absolute truth, though isn't it funny how no one would ever admit this empirical fact. Obviously, capitalism.

No, we must be more clever than the enemy we're fighting. We must redirect, and transform the weapons of the enemy into and unto itself.

I strongly suggest collaborating (and by that I mean blind them with the brilliance and modesty that can only be mustered by the truest of the true Komrade) with Kyoani Studio, instead of Studio Ghibli.

Kyoani is one of the, if not top studio when it comes to producing moe blob shows. Ie: Cute females doing cute stuff. A reboot and re-imagining of the 'magical girl' genre, that is far more deeper than it first seems, with a solid foundation of philosophical underpinning that will embarass, undermine, and defeat the evils of capitalism.

Basically, something like Sailormoon for the new millennium.



That's just phase one, or Operation: Pacific Mango.

Phase two must also be initiated simultaneously or shortly thereafter. An updated old school saturday morning children cartoon staple, redone with the same brilliance and panache as above. Operation: Atlantica Anima.



The neo-classical-cysts capitalists will quake in their child slave labor made boots. Marx my words.

[Jester]

I would like to see more work done on questions like:
-how can we let pay people the real cost of objects and services?
-why is a cyclic economy so bad and can we do something about it?*

(I am not an economist and don't read much literature so it might be that some nice work has been done on this)

Practically the entire discipline is work on those two questions. The first is the fundamental question of Microeconomics, and the second, the fundamental question of Macro.

-Jester

---

Nothing went wrong - booms and busts are an INHERENT feature of the capitalist system, as Marx accurately observed some 150 years ago. But of course, they would never admit this for the obvious political implications, despite it being proved as empirical fact throughout capitalisms' entire history, because it would shatter the fragile ideological framework which NCE stands upon.

The problem of booms and busts has been central to the work of every major macro theorist since Keynes and the Austrians. The key question is not admitting their existence, which is glaringly obvious. The problems are three:

1) What causes the boom and bust cycle? ("Inherent to capitalism" is unsatisfactory - We need to know why is it inherent? What happens, and when?)

2) How do we best prevent booms and busts?

3) What do we do after a bust?

Keynes said that the booms and busts were inherent, but that demand management could solve the 3rd problem. Milton Friedman said "monetary policy, monetary policy, and monetary policy." The Austrians make booze/hangover metaphors, and blame fractional reserve banking. Real Business Cycle theorists say that we can't do anything about it, because all shocks are supply-side shocks, and money is neutral.

To say that economists can't acknowledge this problem because it would be ideologically uncomfortable is not even at square one.

-Jester

[LemmingofGlory]

Well...economics tries to predict things, but always with a goal and an ideology in mind. And usually this goal is the goal of western rich people.

Please never compare economics with physics (or meteorology for that matter).

To say the the goal of economics is to serve the wealthy is like saying the goal of science is to prove that no gods exist. The goal of economics is to create models of whatever economy you may be interested in describing. (Some economists use their models to study EVEonline.) How it is used may be influenced by ideology, but it is foolish to confuse a tool with the one who uses it. Even if many people use economics in a way that assumes the conclusion they seek, I do not believe the discipline is constructed around that. To me, that is like saying statistics is a corrupt discipline because some people distort studies and use handpicked samples.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

Well...economics tries to predict things, but always with a goal and an ideology in mind. And usually this goal is the goal of western rich people.

Please never compare economics with physics (or meteorology for that matter).

To say the the goal of economics is to serve the wealthy is like saying the goal of science is to prove that no gods exist. The goal of economics is to create models of whatever economy you may be interested in describing. (Some economists use their models to study EVEonline.) How it is used may be influenced by ideology, but it is foolish to confuse a tool with the one who uses it. Even if many people use economics in a way that assumes the conclusion they seek, I do not believe the discipline is constructed around that. To me, that is like saying statistics is a corrupt discipline because some people distort studies and use handpicked samples.

-Lem

No....eppie is right, and he probably even understates things.

Economics is in fact more ideologically entangled than most other sciences for obvious reasons.

Capitalism needs productive technology and it needs a level of pure scientific discovery, but at the same time, this can be a threat. So on the one hand science is aimed in directions that obviously benefit the profit system - i.e. more money to research profitable drugs for depression when there are already options, instead of trying to figure out how to get more people to use existing drugs that they need, or producing cheaper versions or whatnot.

In other ways the sciences are shaped by the system because of ideological assumptions, or sometimes consciously redirected because of radical implications (related to why Marxian Economics is by necessity treated as a heterodox). So, for example, modern environmental science goes through tons of evidence for doom and gloom and all the ways our society is impacting the environment and yet they can't seem to come up with conclusions. Most don't even suggest that production methods should change - sometimes they offer small reforms, but nothing that will actually slow the huge environmental impact. Doom and gloom and the scientists offer suggestions for solar panels on people's homes and energy-saving light-bulbs. In other words, buy smarter, rather than change the way production is done - and the problems with this philosophy should be fairly obvious.

Thus, either these scientists never even question the role or purpose of capitalism, or they think that even modest reforms are too out of the question and unrealistic politically.

Since capitalists view and justify the system as being the 'best of all possible worlds', ideological pressure for economists to reflect this and gloss over the inherent problems is not some conspiracy theory as you would suggest, but it is real world phenomena and a natural consequence.

Lastly, a comparison to biological science in this case is dubious - science cannot prove or disprove that a god exists, and thus that is not its goal nor can it be its goal. However, a ruling class DOES materially exist, and thus economics can be and IS in fact used in an ideological context to the benefits of said ruling class. Whether it is done so consciously or not is up for debate (I believe it often is done deliberately), but either way makes no difference.

This post can be applied to Jesters comments as well. The three questions you posed are often glossed over by NCE's for reasons I explained above, and when they aren't glossed over, only explanations that stay within the navigation of the framework are acceptable, because of the ideological and political implications - anything that actually critiques the legitimacy or validity of capitalism's totality is to be rejected or ignored entirely. It is at square one, and then some, comrade. The mere fact you say otherwise is just further confirmation of this.

[Jester]

I don't think you have the first clue about economists or about climate scientists. You see what you want to see, and ignore the rest.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Woe is me, that was the ultimate rebuttal right there! Yep, I see the light now

[Jester]

Woe is me, that was the ultimate rebuttal right there! Yep, I see the light now

What else is there to say? I take the time to point out to you that your assertions about economics are incorrect, and obviously so.

You reply by repeating the very same manifestly incorrect assertions. The best argument you make in your defense is that I argued with your points, therefore, you must be on to something.

You're ignorant, you're not listening, and whatever I say is apparently proof that the opposite is true. Nothing much left after that.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

So you deny the FACT that NEC is necessarily driven by ideology, and not science? I suppose next you will argue that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun.

Dude, even one of your OWN fellow economists admitted it, not a Marxist economist, a bourgeois NCE economist!.....And I am sure I could find more if I so desired to. Face it, you lost this one man, and in convincing fashion.

[Jester]

So you deny the FACT that NEC is necessarily driven by ideology, and not science? I suppose next you will argue that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun.

You just equated the factual status of your opinion on neoclassical economics with the earth's orbit of the sun.

Are you listening to yourself?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

You wish it was just an opinion

Since after all, anything that provides an inconvenience to your bourgeois claptrap must be wrong, only be an opinion or ignored entirely. Your denial of NCE being driven by ideology in itself is illustrative of why the framework is ideological rather than scientific: it ignores real world social forces and processes - forces and processes that negate the assumptions (usually ideologically based) made in the utopian models. By denying that ideology drives NCE, you are already guilty what this thread is about to begin with, ironically enough. You want to separate the political from the economic, but this doesn't happen in the real world - the two are mutually inclusive. You claim I am wrong, yet you havent provided even a shred of empirical evidence to suggest so.

[Jester]

You wish it was just an opinion

Are FACTS different from facts? Maybe that's the part I'm missing. I had just assumed the all-caps was you yelling at us. But maybe you mean something else entirely, something like "Marxist opinions which are a special kind of awesome."

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

It has been my observation that economics tries to be a science. It isn't as good as chemistry on predictions, however.

My understanding is that economists (and, incidentally, meteorologists) have the difficult job of attempting to create models of chaotic systems;

Aye. Part of the fun is that the weather (chaotic system), influences the economic (chaotic system. The other way around? Not so much.

And usually this goal is the goal of western rich people.

That is you, eppie. To about 80% of the population of the planet, you are Western Rich. This Bud's for you, and this economy is for you. Cheers.

(I am not an economist and don't read much literature so it might be that some nice work has been done on this)

That is obvious.

Nothing went wrong - booms and busts are an INHERENT feature of the capitalist system, as Marx accurately observed some 150 years ago.

And of non-capitalist systems based in agrarian economies. Weather has an influence on that, as does disease, and much else.

I don't think you have the first clue about economists or about climate scientists. You see what you want to see, and ignore the rest. -Jester

QFT

Woe is me, that was the ultimate rebuttal right there! Yep, I see the light now

Not lately.

You just equated the factual status of your opinion on neoclassical economics with the earth's orbit of the sun.
-Jester

No evidence of that poster listening to others, now not even to self. Broadcast mode only.

Maybe there's a nice band he'll listen to. Mojo Nixon, maybe?

[FireIceTalon]

You can keep denying it all you like; yet you havent provided even a sliver of evidence to disprove that NCE has an ideological premise. Oh wait, because you can't. The real world models do not reflect the utopian models that NCE proposes - they don't even come close, and that's because the framework is more interested in ideology than on scientific inquiry. The pseudoscience of NCE is increasingly becoming self-evident (and you can't deny what is self-evident), to the point where economists are coming out of the woodwork and admitting the entire framework is essentially bogus.

Steve Keen's descriptive term, "degenerative research program", describes NCE pretty well.

[Jester]

Steve Keen's descriptive term, "degenerative research program", describes NCE pretty well.

Imre Lakatos' term, actually.

You seem to think your argument is self-evident, and that anyone who presents a contrary argument is simply someone who believes in the opposite position, which they take to be equally self-evident. Then you can yell at each other.

If you want anyone to take you seriously about economics, then say something specific. If you want to start with Keen, go ahead. But that would already by several miles ahead of where you've gone so far, which has been nothing but one assertion layered on top of another.

-Jester

[eppie]

I would like to see more work done on questions like:
-how can we let pay people the real cost of objects and services?
-why is a cyclic economy so bad and can we do something about it?*

(I am not an economist and don't read much literature so it might be that some nice work has been done on this)

Practically the entire discipline is work on those two questions. The first is the fundamental question of Microeconomics, and the second, the fundamental question of Macro.

-Jester

OK, great, so why is it we still don't include costs of destroying our planet and valuable resources such as biodiversity in the price of things? Is it that economists don't agree on this or do they find other things more important? I mean market economy is only possible when we wouldn't influence the place we live...for continuous growth you need a more or less infinite source of energy and raw materials. Wind and solar energy would fit in this picture, and our economy will be based on that in time.....but why is that process going so slow, I mean if economists tell us we should?

---

To say the the goal of economics is to serve the wealthy is like saying the goal of science is to prove that no gods exist. The goal of economics is to create models of whatever economy you may be interested in describing. (Some economists use their models to study EVEonline.) How it is used may be influenced by ideology, but it is foolish to confuse a tool with the one who uses it. Even if many people use economics in a way that assumes the conclusion they seek, I do not believe the discipline is constructed around that. To me, that is like saying statistics is a corrupt discipline because some people distort studies and use handpicked samples.

-Lem

Economics are influenced by the reaction of people to certain facts and changes. Those reactions are influenced by politics, media, advertisements etc. Which themselves are again influenced by economics.
An economist who says the crisis is over will create a positive response by the people which actually will help a crisis to finish faster. Physics doesn't work like that.

---

That is you, eppie. To about 80% of the population of the planet, you are Western Rich. This Bud's for you, and this economy is for you. Cheers.

Well don't understand me wrong, I am happy with the place I was born and the wealth that came with that, compared to most other people but that doesn't mean I think we should base our policy on that.