i almost believe there has to be like a reckoning in economics, kind of like with psychology and the backlash against freud. far too many of the assumptions are taken for granted as fact despite haveing no data to back them (like the laffer curve, really?). they just get propogated because rich white men said stuff that benefits them.
like there is definitely some truth to glean in economics. but as it stands, it’s a disservice to call it a science.
like there is definitely some truth to glean in economics. but as it stands, it’s a disservice to call it a science.
absolutely, my statement was real edgelordy, but the idea behind economics, that is to say “resource management” is a valuable field of study, but as you say, it’s all been manipulated shit to make the rich richer.
Nobody ever looked at the laffer curve and went “huh, so we cut taxes for the rich, and tax revenue went down, that means we should raise taxes for the rich.”
It’s been a long time since my college econ classes, but I remember the flaw with Laffer’s curve wasn’t so much that it exists as it was his assumption that we’re on the right side of the curve instead of the left.
As far as I can remember, even if Laffer was correct about his theory (and that’s a hell of an if) no one has been able to demonstrably prove the point where cutting taxes increases federal revenue. It’s pretty obvious at this point the whole theory is just a post hoc rationale for cutting taxes.
The Laffer curve represents the premise that high taxes repress the economy and lower total revenue as badly as extremely low taxes would and that there is a sweet spot on the curve where the tax rate isn’t too high or too low which maximizes total revenue. Conservatives always claim that the tax rates are above that point and that we just need to keep lowering tax rates on the rich to spur the economy and thus boost revenue.
They don’t know where that sweet spot is but they are just sure that we are above it and we just need to keep cutting. In summary, they are idiots who just want to make rich people richer.
Yes, that was my point, that if they actually believed in that model, they would support raising taxes because every time we cut taxes, revenue decreases.
It’s a “science” manufactured to justify neoliberalism and a failing global capitalist system.
I’m a STEM person, so I thought I’d take an economics class in college and it’s all basically voodoo. The textbook contradicted itself all the time and the reasoning was full of fallacies. Do not recommend.
Economics is a science, at least in theory, but it’s a science that’s being practiced very badly.
The core issue is that pretty much the entire field has decided, collectively, that there is absolutely no requirement to test their assumptions against reality. Basically economists will build a model that reflects a vision of reality that seems to make sense to them, and then build a whole set of assertions supported by that model. I don’t recall the origin of the quote, but it’s been said that “Economists would study the price of milk by assuming an infinite number of frictionless spherical cows operating in an infinite vacuum.”
When economists (most often ones who would describe themselves as progressive economists) actually do test the models against observable reality, most of them come crashing down. Good economic science instead says “What does reality tell us, and how can be we build models that explain it?”, but right now good economic science is very much running against the mainstream.
There are good economists out there. The youtube channel Unlearning Economics is a fantastic starting point, as is this lecture series from McMaster University; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzLUWMt2NZLRmKY_kEiLc-hvOcyOlgE4N. I also suggest looking into David Graebar, Cristobal Young, and Mark Blyth. The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight by Young and Austerity: The History of A Dangerous Idea by Blyth are both superbly informative and easy reads.
First “all models are flawed but that does not mean that they are worthless”
To be clear Graeber is an anthropologist and is not an economist. You might like what he says but his degree is in a different field
Cristobal Young is a sociologist again not an economist. You might like what they say that does not mean it has any merit economically speaking (I haven’t looked into any published work)
Blyth actually has a degree and background in political economics. Political economists are mixed bags as they tend to not be able to do the math to support their claims. As is the case with all social science the important part is to see if their claims were published in academic journals first. Blyth is ok not great IMO
there’s repeatable experiments/steps to take with proven and proveable outcomes
Is astronomy a science?
Some sciences rely more on analysis & indirect observation.
Direct experimentation can be intractable making testing of hypotheses & theories less straightforward.
Academic economics resources I’ve read (decades ago) are dismissive of trickle-down/supply-side economics.
Ok so you might want to look that definition up because it’s not great.
No one who is educated in economics who is attempting to have an informed discussion of economics uses the term “trickle down economics”. Theproper term is supply side economics.
Trickle down is proposed by politicians not by economists because economists know it isn’t effective in most situations except things like housing eg (it’s easier to build more homes than convince people they don’t need one of their own)
economics is not a science, it’s not even a humanity; it’s an inhumanity.
i almost believe there has to be like a reckoning in economics, kind of like with psychology and the backlash against freud. far too many of the assumptions are taken for granted as fact despite haveing no data to back them (like the laffer curve, really?). they just get propogated because rich white men said stuff that benefits them.
like there is definitely some truth to glean in economics. but as it stands, it’s a disservice to call it a science.
absolutely, my statement was real edgelordy, but the idea behind economics, that is to say “resource management” is a valuable field of study, but as you say, it’s all been manipulated shit to make the rich richer.
well expressed!
Nobody ever looked at the laffer curve and went “huh, so we cut taxes for the rich, and tax revenue went down, that means we should raise taxes for the rich.”
It’s been a long time since my college econ classes, but I remember the flaw with Laffer’s curve wasn’t so much that it exists as it was his assumption that we’re on the right side of the curve instead of the left.
As far as I can remember, even if Laffer was correct about his theory (and that’s a hell of an if) no one has been able to demonstrably prove the point where cutting taxes increases federal revenue. It’s pretty obvious at this point the whole theory is just a post hoc rationale for cutting taxes.
We just didn’t cut taxes enough!!!1!! Keep cutting taxes for the rich and someday we’ll ALL be rich!!
But the laffer curve indicates that if we cut taxes a little and that lowers revenue, cutting them even more would be much worse??
The Laffer curve represents the premise that high taxes repress the economy and lower total revenue as badly as extremely low taxes would and that there is a sweet spot on the curve where the tax rate isn’t too high or too low which maximizes total revenue. Conservatives always claim that the tax rates are above that point and that we just need to keep lowering tax rates on the rich to spur the economy and thus boost revenue.
They don’t know where that sweet spot is but they are just sure that we are above it and we just need to keep cutting. In summary, they are idiots who just want to make rich people richer.
Yes, that was my point, that if they actually believed in that model, they would support raising taxes because every time we cut taxes, revenue decreases.
It’s a “science” manufactured to justify neoliberalism and a failing global capitalist system.
I’m a STEM person, so I thought I’d take an economics class in college and it’s all basically voodoo. The textbook contradicted itself all the time and the reasoning was full of fallacies. Do not recommend.
Economics is a science, at least in theory, but it’s a science that’s being practiced very badly.
The core issue is that pretty much the entire field has decided, collectively, that there is absolutely no requirement to test their assumptions against reality. Basically economists will build a model that reflects a vision of reality that seems to make sense to them, and then build a whole set of assertions supported by that model. I don’t recall the origin of the quote, but it’s been said that “Economists would study the price of milk by assuming an infinite number of frictionless spherical cows operating in an infinite vacuum.”
When economists (most often ones who would describe themselves as progressive economists) actually do test the models against observable reality, most of them come crashing down. Good economic science instead says “What does reality tell us, and how can be we build models that explain it?”, but right now good economic science is very much running against the mainstream.
There are good economists out there. The youtube channel Unlearning Economics is a fantastic starting point, as is this lecture series from McMaster University; https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzLUWMt2NZLRmKY_kEiLc-hvOcyOlgE4N. I also suggest looking into David Graebar, Cristobal Young, and Mark Blyth. The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight by Young and Austerity: The History of A Dangerous Idea by Blyth are both superbly informative and easy reads.
First “all models are flawed but that does not mean that they are worthless”
To be clear Graeber is an anthropologist and is not an economist. You might like what he says but his degree is in a different field
Cristobal Young is a sociologist again not an economist. You might like what they say that does not mean it has any merit economically speaking (I haven’t looked into any published work)
Blyth actually has a degree and background in political economics. Political economists are mixed bags as they tend to not be able to do the math to support their claims. As is the case with all social science the important part is to see if their claims were published in academic journals first. Blyth is ok not great IMO
What makes something scientific?
that it’s based on the scientific method, and there’s repeatable experiments/steps to take with proven and proveable outcomes.
“Trickle down economics” is a fucking lie, yet we have zillions of (economic) liberals.
Is astronomy a science?
Some sciences rely more on analysis & indirect observation. Direct experimentation can be intractable making testing of hypotheses & theories less straightforward.
Academic economics resources I’ve read (decades ago) are dismissive of trickle-down/supply-side economics.
Ok so you might want to look that definition up because it’s not great.
No one who is educated in economics who is attempting to have an informed discussion of economics uses the term “trickle down economics”. Theproper term is supply side economics.
Trickle down is proposed by politicians not by economists because economists know it isn’t effective in most situations except things like housing eg (it’s easier to build more homes than convince people they don’t need one of their own)
great , now make it have an impact on people’s lives that matters.
If you think economics has no impact on everyone you might want to check out this link:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-02-principles-of-macroeconomics-spring-2023/