You can find an “expert economist” to paint you any picture you like. I mean, hell, we still have people in the US thinking trickle down economics is a rule that works. To the point it’s even flooded into the housing market, where people still believe that building luxury housing with tax dollars is a way to create cheap housing.
Okay, but the only economists who believe in trickle-down bullshite are Austrian School clowns who aren’t taken seriously by the discipline as a whole. Even the extremely pro-free-market Chicago School thinks it’s bunk. It would be like pointing to the 2% or so of climate scientist denialists as proof that there’s serious dissent as to the nature or seriousness of climate change inside of the discipline, when, in reality, there isn’t. It’s just politically convenient to pretend so.
Okay, but the only economists who believe in trickle-down bullshite are Austrian School clowns who aren’t taken seriously by the discipline as a whole
Well, they are taken seriously by… Every politician.
It would be like pointing to the 2% or so of climate scientist denialists as proof that there’s serious dissent as to the nature or seriousness of climate change inside of the discipline, when, in reality, there isn’t. It’s just politically convenient to pretend so.
May I remind you who drives economic policy? Checks notes… Politicians.
I mean, I’m not trying to say that morons and swindlers don’t have influence over the real world, I’m just saying that legitimate experts are generally trustworthy with regards to their field of expertise - if not necessarily in presenting the correct view, in at least presenting a supported view, and trickle-down is anything but. A fucking zombie theory only given life by horrific amounts of dark money, that makes everyone in economics academia retch when it enters the room.
Legitimate economic experts are still using the assumption that the world has infinite resources to be exploited, and therefore, we should have infinite growth…
So, color me skeptical on whatever the “economic experts” state. Because they also state privatization and commodification of social interactions is “Good actually”… Those same experts have “gifted” us enshittification.
Legitimate economic experts are still using the assumption that the world has infinite resources to be exploited, and therefore, we should have infinite growth…
… peak resources and diminishing returns of limited deposits are major topics in modern economics.
Don’t mistake modern economies with modern economics. Economists have as much control over economic policy in most cases as climate scientists have over climate policy.
… peak resources and diminishing returns of limited deposits are major topics in modern economics
So, they accept that inflation is bad, because inflation is a signal that resources are nowhere near maxed out, and basing an economic system on having inflation means said system expect infinite growth, in a finite set of resources, correct?
Don’t mistake modern economies with modern economics.
So, basically, economics are just a bunch of untested ruminations of academia then, and have no place in our decision making, correct?
Because, when “theory” meets the road, it just shows all those ruminations are just “Best guesses, based on faulty premises”.
Not all experts are equal. Climate science is a hard science with decades of data and evidence backing it up. Economics is a soft science with policy recommendations based on politics, running a feedback loop where the rich boost policies that benefit themselves.
Isn’t it great that we also have people who do know about economics?
“The people are tired of experts” stupidity apparently knows no political borders.
You can find an “expert economist” to paint you any picture you like. I mean, hell, we still have people in the US thinking trickle down economics is a rule that works. To the point it’s even flooded into the housing market, where people still believe that building luxury housing with tax dollars is a way to create cheap housing.
Okay, but the only economists who believe in trickle-down bullshite are Austrian School clowns who aren’t taken seriously by the discipline as a whole. Even the extremely pro-free-market Chicago School thinks it’s bunk. It would be like pointing to the 2% or so of climate scientist denialists as proof that there’s serious dissent as to the nature or seriousness of climate change inside of the discipline, when, in reality, there isn’t. It’s just politically convenient to pretend so.
Well, they are taken seriously by… Every politician.
May I remind you who drives economic policy? Checks notes… Politicians.
I mean, I’m not trying to say that morons and swindlers don’t have influence over the real world, I’m just saying that legitimate experts are generally trustworthy with regards to their field of expertise - if not necessarily in presenting the correct view, in at least presenting a supported view, and trickle-down is anything but. A fucking zombie theory only given life by horrific amounts of dark money, that makes everyone in economics academia retch when it enters the room.
Legitimate economic experts are still using the assumption that the world has infinite resources to be exploited, and therefore, we should have infinite growth…
So, color me skeptical on whatever the “economic experts” state. Because they also state privatization and commodification of social interactions is “Good actually”… Those same experts have “gifted” us enshittification.
… peak resources and diminishing returns of limited deposits are major topics in modern economics.
Don’t mistake modern economies with modern economics. Economists have as much control over economic policy in most cases as climate scientists have over climate policy.
So, they accept that inflation is bad, because inflation is a signal that resources are nowhere near maxed out, and basing an economic system on having inflation means said system expect infinite growth, in a finite set of resources, correct?
So, basically, economics are just a bunch of untested ruminations of academia then, and have no place in our decision making, correct?
Because, when “theory” meets the road, it just shows all those ruminations are just “Best guesses, based on faulty premises”.
Not all experts are equal. Climate science is a hard science with decades of data and evidence backing it up. Economics is a soft science with policy recommendations based on politics, running a feedback loop where the rich boost policies that benefit themselves.