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?
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?