Post

anti-intellectualism is good when the left does it and bad when the right does it, you see

Lemondrop 👉 YOUMA@lipstick-lemondrop.bsky.social

holy moly @hausofdecline.bsky.social in @inthesetimes.com ???

also probably unintentional but “weird monied elite with strange facial features doesn’t care about the Real Common People (you know, us)” is a reactionary cliche

very tired of pretending that dismissing modern economics is somehow more reasonable than dismissing vaccines. if you’re not an expert, you don’t get to pick and choose parts of a field to believe! you have no way to tell between legitimate and illegitimate results in that field!

28 reposts372 likes

Economics can not be a hard science until we find determinism in our universe. It’s dependent on too many fields, like politics, natural resources and in the end, human psychology, which is extremely difficult to predict. Vaccines are rigorously proven to work before mass adoption.

“Too large a proportion of recent "mathematical" economics are mere concoctions, as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols.” JMK

The modern economy is based on feelings not facts. Demand, consumer confidence, FOMO, predictions, trust ratings, hype. FFS it often has an “invisible hand.”

I had so many thoughts on this I had to make my own thread

Bethany Stoller@bethanystoller.bsky.social

I'm seeing a lot of posts comparing believing the economy is getting worse to being an anti-vaxxer. I think most people get intuitively that it's a bad comparison, but I think the reasons why are interesting to think about 1/

Bourgeois Economics is like what medicine would be if the homeopathic people took it over and tried to make themselves the only game in town despite clear evidence that they're wrong

I'm so glad that somebody else remembers Reinhart and Rogoff. Not only was "modern economics" proven to be the product of lazy court sycophants who couldn't be bothered to check for simple Microsoft Excel errors...

...well over a decade ago, and on an international scale...but the authors retained their credentials and respectability afterwards! One of them got promoted to CHIEF ECONOMIST OF THE WORLD BANK! What am I supposed to think about the "legitimacy" of economics after that?

When economics was a relatively new field of study it at least had the credibility of a well meaning upstart. However the standards of evidence are so low, and the financial motivations to interfere with the process are so high, that’s its output hasn’t been worth much in decades.

modern economics = mathematical abstraction of behavior in aggregate, in the service of justifying capitalism vaccines = scientific technique for developing immunity to communicable diseases

Vaccines reflect the physical world as we can see it and as we can observe it with known variables that can and are directly tested against. Economics is a bunch of words put down by people who wanted to be rich about how to be rich and they say "we should be rich and you should be poor."

I miss critiques like "economics assumes humans are perfectly rational actors!" which is, at least, a valid critique (that mainstream economics integrated decades ago) now it's just, "but grocery prices are up!" good observation bud

I miss critiques like "economics assumes humans are perfectly rational actors!" which is, at least, a valid critique (that mainstream economics integrated decades ago) now it's just, "but grocery prices are up!" good observation bud

Almost everyone in America believes politicians--without thinking about it--when they say something is what economists believe. They never hear what economists actually believe from economists themselves. The politicians (left and right) are *always* lying for their own purposes.

Wwwhat? That's not how or what economics is. One important thing is that economics is not a science. And the "modern" economic paradigms are not advances on older economic paradigms, they're just different, shaped as those were by historical context. Are there true and false things? Yes, some.

considering a measurable portion of the field of "modern economics" is ideologically dedicated to rebutting Keynes, despite that being the only economic theory proven in actual conditions, no, I don't think we need to take that field seriously.

Additionally, this presupposes that all fields are at the same level of development and complexity. Is economics at vaccine level? Or is it at the point where we kinda knew about germ theory but doctors still refused to wash their hands?

There's one economist on here who regularly shares official government statistics that says housing is £400/month. I'm not translating that across the Atlantic, but suffice it to say lol, lmao, things of that nature.

“I told my psychiatrist that everyone hates me for being [a bloodless quant]. He said I was being ridiculous: everyone hasn’t met me yet.” Robert Fogel IV , The Rodney Dangerfield Chair in Econometrics at Fancy Pants U

Apparently the "nerd face" emoji is, in some carefully-undefined sense, "reactionary". The whole Unicode Consortium is basically Joseph Goebbels. Sorry you had to find out this way. bsky.app/profile/eiko...

oliver@eikopf.com

also probably unintentional but “weird monied elite with strange facial features doesn’t care about the Real Common People (you know, us)” is a reactionary cliche

I think vaccine research has the benefit of trials where we can see if the methods are actually valid. Economics ranges from business majors making up a thing based on something that's happened twice in history to game theory with hard proofs

That is to say, not all experts should be treated equally. Some fields don't have consensus on the data, some fields don't have the ability to get any good data, and some fields are "99% of experts agree that this is observable reality".

Economics are an abstract model of how human production and its interrelation work, which has been subject to quite a bit of debate, while vaccines are a physical thing known to have real-world effects on living bodies. Fuck you

A great deal of “modern economics” is built up within and amplified by institutions whose endowments function in the economy in the SA way as billionaires. This is the only reason Milton Friedman and Frederich Hayek are taken seriously: politics.

Economics as an academic field starts with preconceptions that the things we do now should be done and just measured to be done more effectively. It doesn't challenge the assumptions that maybe we don't need money, a wage labor system, rule of the law of value, generalized commodity production.

You don't get to complain about economics being fake at least until economics students are made to read the actual version of Wealth of Nations instead of the cut down one for... Well... Economics majors, lol

Psychology is also real, as is medicine, but most doctors dealing with trans folks are allowed to be quacks at best and objectively harmful Mengeles at worst. It's almost like there's, I dunno societal systems of some sort. Maybe you can analyze in some type of... Systemic analysis? Crazy!

I think you are wrong on multiple levels: a) Vaccines are based on science, which is much older than economics. Economics is a young discipline in historical terms b) Traditionally a lot of economics relied on maximising the pie for the well-off, with an implicit belief in trickle down effect. cont.

c) this is not even anti-intellectualism. No one is dismissing the concept of genuine economic debate using charts :) This is aimed at someone who is happy to ignore the fact that not everyone is benefiting from the economic progress.

d) Deferring to experts in the field of science (accepting climate change as real) or vaccines (accepting vaccines) is a lot different to deferring to experts in economics. In science, the goal is correct science which automatically results in the betterment of mankind. This is not the case (cont)

in economics. Firstly, the fact is that economists ARE members of the middle-class and above themselves, which has real potential to color their thinking. Secondly, it's legitimate to ask what is the aim of a particular economic policy that's being promoted.

I have more faith in folk in the health field making cool stuff to help people's actual bodies over an economist who relies on overglorified astrology to tell me about the make-believe health of a reification / fantasy like the economy. That's called being rational and existential, dumbass.

Have you tried replacing "economics" with "phrenology"? Suddenly it's concerning that you won't dismiss racist pseudoscience...excuse me as I have to check my oven, I'm having my 401k for dinner.

What you've written is soft antivax nonsense. Vaccines are believed in not because "experts" in a closed field purport that they are, but because that field is actually open and interacts well with all of enquiry.

Hey buddy. The price of butter (and everything else) is 50-100% higher than it was 5 years ago. Grocer corp profits are all time high yet they claim inflation and salary increases force them to boost prices. The numbers are public, you can read their reports. We're getting abused. Hope this helps.

One of these is real science with broad consensus and empirical verification and the other is routinely mocked by even its practitioners. Get back to us when there’s something like “freshwater vs. saltwater immunology”

Your entire profession has spent the last two centuries trying and failing miserably to disprove Karl Marx. You force yourself to believe obvious lies because your paycheck depends upon your not understanding the truth. Sit the fuck down.

economics isnt a science. its a set of arbitrary rules for distributing wealth according to the whims of the actors with the most influence. pretending its like an exercise in truth seeking is dopey fantasy dogmatic thinking.

Different things sure are the same when you don’t think about it. “This field ignores the anxieties of the people it impacts” is in fact a reasonable criticism of both economics and medicine.

Which part of modern economics are people dismissing when they say that having a high stock market doesn’t help most people afford higher grocery prices?

"very tired of pretending that dismissing modern reading of animal entrails is somehow more reasonable than dismissing a real branch of science" ok but have you considered that this is a false dichotomy and the irrefutable conclusion that you are a laughable dunce

Whelp i don't have a fake degree in economics i have no idea whether grocery and fuel prices are skyrocketing, better ask the geniuses at the economist for help deciphering this complex situation.

This comic isn't arguing against modern economics. It's arguing against treating the stock market as the only economic indicator that matters, and implicitly, against treating economic aggregates as though they matter to any particular case. No good-faith economist would argue against any of that.

No... If you’ve taken litterally a basic statistics course you can look at any study and determine if the results are significant. You can look at how their studies are made and know if it's crap methodology or not.

“Yes, I shall listen to the experts, they say the economy is doing wonderfully,” I say forgoing food for a third meal in a row for fear of missing rent, without the means to enfranchise myself with wages that continue to plummet into the core of our little blue dot, the Cradle of Humanity, Earth

Vaccines are based on the solid science of immunology. Modern economics are based on the Chicago school of Milton Friedman and is baseless woo used to justify atrocities in the name of profit for the already obscenely wealthy. You’d get more fact based predictions results from a Hello Kitty tarot.

Underwater basket weaving fucking sweeps economics as a major At least basket weaving does something good while not stealing from others, and also underwater basket weaving makes a good joke Economics is just evil bullshit

There are multiple schools of economic thought that more or less formally assert that if reality doesn't match their models, then it's reality that is wrong? I think it's pretty safe to say that's not going to be a source of legitimate results.

A epidemiologist can predict with a high level of accuracy what the effects of mass immunisation program will be. An economist cannot tell you what the state of the economy will be next week with any reliability.

To the extent that 'modern economics' contains people arguing against the sort of dumb take portrayed in the comic then the people criticising that sort of dumb take aren't dismissing all of modern economics.

Anytime I need to make this point, I just gesture toward the ancient concept of the Dollar Menu. A McDouble, which is a whole-ass double cheeseburger with only one slice of cheese rather than two, used to be 99 cents. Now it's upwards of three bucks.