@yogthos talking about "rational" humans and "infinit growth". The economist nailed it by fasifiing his own asumption .

**Teacup-throwing-noise**

@yogthos It's frustrating how economics people will say "this other economist doesn't get it".

It's not math. It's not remotely past theory in "science" terms.

@pkw @yogthos though I think we can all agree that supply side economics are stupid and don't work

@pkw @yogthos they're not scientists, they're priests of the made-up violence-god that the modern kings build altars to in order to ritually legitimize their rule

@Elizafox @yogthos To be fair, Physics does have the concept of eternal inflation which is exponential growth.

@yogthos ah yes, strawman economists, totally agree that they sound really silly

@yogthos@mas.to
economics: therefore we should structure all of society around this
philosophy: I no longer wish to live

@yogthos

I'm pretty sure that real economists believe exactly none of that stuff.

I'm pretty sure that getting mad at economists about capitalism is rather like getting mad at meteorologists because it's raining.

@aearo @yogthos if I would tell to any of my economics professors at uni these claims from the original post, they would think I'm nuts

@IngaLovinde @aearo @yogthos both can be true at the same time. not all economists believe the same things. and most of them don't directly influence economic policy. if enough *influential* economists believe this (which does seem likely), the damage is done.

@yogthos @aearo @meganeko ah yes, the same Milton Friedman who argued for a negative income tax (which is basically an universal basic income), which is now widely considered a leftist idea and was never implemented anywhere up to this day. Very influental, depending on your definition of influence. Also very bad among physicists apparently.

@IngaLovinde @aearo @meganeko yeah same Milton Friedman who argued that corporations sole responsibility is to make profit for their shareholders. Imagine arguing with a straight face that he wasn't influential. Total clown shit.

@aearo @meganeko @yogthos I don't think any economists believe this, besides maybe some fringe nutheads.
It is true that there is an useful _model_ of rational agents but it's just that, a model (and other sciences have models too! Like a material point in physics)
And of course everybody in that field understands that it's just a model, and in fact an entire nobel prizes have been awarded to people researching in what exact ways actual human behavior deviates from that model (=is irrational)

@aearo @meganeko @yogthos oh, and also, one of the most influential economists is Karl Marx 🤷

@yogthos

Folks asserting that no economists believe this, but I'm pretty sure this is a summary of the Chicago School and the basis for almost all economic policy in the West and especially in the states unlucky enough that the West can impose "economic discipline" on them.

@yogthos Well the economist would say that humans value whatever they derive utility from by definition, so whatever sociology/psychology says humans value will be included in that definition. The economist readily acknowledges that it has either subjective or objective value depending on the situation.

Okay, checks out.

The economist would then build models that assume utility is easily quantifiable + consistent and that subjective value only matters when analyzing trade, right after acknowledging that this isn't how human behavior works in its entirety. It's the equivalent of a physicist's frictionless vacuum.

Engineers acknowledge the complexity of real world constraints while applying physics. The equivalent for economics is...business. We're doomed.

@yogthos the second one is somethin my then economics lecturer would tell us.

@yogthos What a stupid strawman of economics. Nobody thinks those things.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
mas.to

Hello! mas.to is a general-topic instance. We're enthusiastic about Mastodon and aim to run a fast, up-to-date and fun Mastodon instance.