• azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    “Econ 101” is just that and if you think it’s representative of “economists” you’re dunning-krugering.

    There are a lot of very competent interdisciplinary socio-economic scientists. The problem is that no-one listens to them because everyone still has the hots for the ghost of fucking Milton Friedman and trickle-down raeganomics.

    Populist ideologues will always promote simple economic models, that’s not the economists’ fault. Sociologists can tell you why bad economic policy is self-sustaining under democratic capitalism but they can’t really do anything about it because no one asks for their opinion.

    Hell, right now the US is ruled by a moron whose understanding of economics is so bad that even the most hard-line libertarian economists are saying “you wot m8”.

    • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah, I think the problem is that the Chicago School is to economics what Freud is to psychology. Despite a century of progress since Freud, pop psych is still all based on him. The difference is that those in charge of policy don’t derive any benefit from applying Freud to mental health policy the way that they might derive a benefit from applying Friedman to economic policy.