Theres fewer and fewer, but some avenues of academics a person wouldnt be swayed left/right solely by their knowledge and subject matter expertise that makes them an academic.
Off the top of my head, only economists have a right wing slant. But that’s because the wealthy bought off the neoliberals to deregulate everything, and everyone agreed that the only people who knew about the economy, were the ones who said Regeanomics was a step in the right direction.
Everyone else was just called wrong and haven’t had a real chance to try on smaller scales that it works.
Mamdani is a great example of someone who just does the easy obvious thing, the difference is him and his administration are actually trying. Doing it in a city with the GDP of most countries, is huge because it’s an obvious example of it working.
economists are glorified soothsayers. No better than the astrologists that could kind of sort of tell you when it was a good idea to sow based on the stars of back in the day.
Yes they have some interesting frameworks, have discovered a few noteworthy causal mechanisms and hold some predictive power… but if you take the self-fulfilled prophecy factor into account (“the economy will behave this way because economics and therefore you should behave in this same way which causes…”) I’m not so sure it’s all that impressive.
Doctors were “modern day clergy” at one point, so we’re historians, biologists, scientists, astronomers and almost everything else.
And they can be again.
Or even better none of them can be.
Like, you understand that economies are real things that need managed, and those people should review what works and what doesn’t.
The current economists recommending shit that clearly don’t work, are a negative to society. If they were gone, there be no negative. But why the actual fuck would you stop there and instead train economists to focus on different metrics than a handful of capitalists high scores.
They could study and determine what would help the most people and ensure basic needs are met.
That’s what economists could be doing, and it would be worth way more than paying them to do it costs.
Sorry, I didn’t want to come across as confrontational. Was just ranting in agreement.
I understand your frustration regarding the application of the discipline, and couldn’t agree more.
The way I see it, and the reason I used the word “clergy” is because there are a few critical elements they have in common with priests and magi, more so than doctors, biologists and astronomers.
1.- They are the official thought-leaders of “what should be done” to reach our notion of “paradise” (in the past: heaven/afterlife; today: financial prosperity)
2.- They are extremely close to positions of political power and leadership of empires (like popes and archbishops back in the day)
3.- They study what society worships (in the past: god(s)/enlightenment/the good life; today: individual choice/wealth/money/power)
4.- They study esoteric mechanisms that are a black box to most (“magic”) and have a fuzzy understanding about them themselves.
I think economics is instrumental to the growth of empires and by emergent design does things that don’t help most people. Feeds them with everything they need to grow: (a means to get/make) slaves, lies and poison.
With the cheap labor they create through misery, the false promises they sustain through their theories and the monumental amount of poisonous goods and services they tell us we need to “stay productive”, the economy is working perfectly fine as far as the most powerful people are concerned.
Maybe it’s a stretch. idk. Just my thoughts. What do you think?
“Academics” is huge…
Theres fewer and fewer, but some avenues of academics a person wouldnt be swayed left/right solely by their knowledge and subject matter expertise that makes them an academic.
Off the top of my head, only economists have a right wing slant. But that’s because the wealthy bought off the neoliberals to deregulate everything, and everyone agreed that the only people who knew about the economy, were the ones who said Regeanomics was a step in the right direction.
Everyone else was just called wrong and haven’t had a real chance to try on smaller scales that it works.
Mamdani is a great example of someone who just does the easy obvious thing, the difference is him and his administration are actually trying. Doing it in a city with the GDP of most countries, is huge because it’s an obvious example of it working.
economists are glorified soothsayers. No better than the astrologists that could kind of sort of tell you when it was a good idea to sow based on the stars of back in the day.
Yes they have some interesting frameworks, have discovered a few noteworthy causal mechanisms and hold some predictive power… but if you take the self-fulfilled prophecy factor into account (“the economy will behave this way because economics and therefore you should behave in this same way which causes…”) I’m not so sure it’s all that impressive.
They’re modern day clergy.
Yeah…
That’s what I’m saying.
Doctors were “modern day clergy” at one point, so we’re historians, biologists, scientists, astronomers and almost everything else.
And they can be again.
Or even better none of them can be.
Like, you understand that economies are real things that need managed, and those people should review what works and what doesn’t.
The current economists recommending shit that clearly don’t work, are a negative to society. If they were gone, there be no negative. But why the actual fuck would you stop there and instead train economists to focus on different metrics than a handful of capitalists high scores.
They could study and determine what would help the most people and ensure basic needs are met.
That’s what economists could be doing, and it would be worth way more than paying them to do it costs.
Sorry, I didn’t want to come across as confrontational. Was just ranting in agreement.
I understand your frustration regarding the application of the discipline, and couldn’t agree more.
The way I see it, and the reason I used the word “clergy” is because there are a few critical elements they have in common with priests and magi, more so than doctors, biologists and astronomers.
1.- They are the official thought-leaders of “what should be done” to reach our notion of “paradise” (in the past: heaven/afterlife; today: financial prosperity)
2.- They are extremely close to positions of political power and leadership of empires (like popes and archbishops back in the day)
3.- They study what society worships (in the past: god(s)/enlightenment/the good life; today: individual choice/wealth/money/power)
4.- They study esoteric mechanisms that are a black box to most (“magic”) and have a fuzzy understanding about them themselves.
I think economics is instrumental to the growth of empires and by emergent design does things that don’t help most people. Feeds them with everything they need to grow: (a means to get/make) slaves, lies and poison.
With the cheap labor they create through misery, the false promises they sustain through their theories and the monumental amount of poisonous goods and services they tell us we need to “stay productive”, the economy is working perfectly fine as far as the most powerful people are concerned.
Maybe it’s a stretch. idk. Just my thoughts. What do you think?
I heard from many right wing influencers that Mamdani has failed, many New Yorkers are leaving New York, he had to take loans. Is it all true?
Why?
Influencers are lying grifters who just want the ability to influence others. Right wingers oubly so.
Stop listening to them or people who believe them
ok but you did not answer my question.
If you don’t understand that me calling them lying grifters didn’t answer the question on if you should believe what they say…
ok