If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
If you’re buying into an economic system that doesn’t make sure that right is filled, then you have a problem with morality, and perhaps also mortality.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work. Whether you want to support the system or tear it down, understanding it is extremely helpful to either cause.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work.
I mean, tell that to economists? In my experience, they are extremely dogmatic. With vanishingly few exceptions, every economist I’ve ever heard, seen, or read in any media acts as though whatever model they subscribe to is gospel, and that any issues you might have with it must therefore stem from a lack of understanding, rather than from the faulty assumptions underlying it.
ETA a recent example: Harvard economics professor and former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman on Jon Stewart’s podcast.
Economists talking to the media are typically pushing for policy proposals, and in pushing for policy, a “never admit uncertainty” sort of deal is in play to avoid a soundbite where an economist says something that can be played as five-second mockery to sink said policy proposal.
Economists writing in academia can be stubborn and at times utterly bizarre, but are genuinely discussing models and theories the same way sociology does.
Yeah, I think there’s also a lot of tone-deafness among economists, that seems to reflect a lack of understanding (or at least acknowledgment) that the economy is built on—and designed to perpetuate—massive inequality. The average person derives comparatively little benefit from an economy which is—on paper—booming, because the profits are overwhelmingly siphoned off by the wealthy. This is probably mostly a problem with the way the economy is reported on by the media, but economists are the face of that.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
If you’re buying into an economic system that doesn’t make sure that right is filled, then you have a problem with morality, and perhaps also mortality.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work. Whether you want to support the system or tear it down, understanding it is extremely helpful to either cause.
I mean, tell that to economists? In my experience, they are extremely dogmatic. With vanishingly few exceptions, every economist I’ve ever heard, seen, or read in any media acts as though whatever model they subscribe to is gospel, and that any issues you might have with it must therefore stem from a lack of understanding, rather than from the faulty assumptions underlying it.
ETA a recent example: Harvard economics professor and former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman on Jon Stewart’s podcast.
Economists talking to the media are typically pushing for policy proposals, and in pushing for policy, a “never admit uncertainty” sort of deal is in play to avoid a soundbite where an economist says something that can be played as five-second mockery to sink said policy proposal.
Economists writing in academia can be stubborn and at times utterly bizarre, but are genuinely discussing models and theories the same way sociology does.
Yeah, I think there’s also a lot of tone-deafness among economists, that seems to reflect a lack of understanding (or at least acknowledgment) that the economy is built on—and designed to perpetuate—massive inequality. The average person derives comparatively little benefit from an economy which is—on paper—booming, because the profits are overwhelmingly siphoned off by the wealthy. This is probably mostly a problem with the way the economy is reported on by the media, but economists are the face of that.