Economics: Humans only value things monetarily.
Sociology: Uh, I don't ...
Economics: Humans are always rational and value is calculated by a complex inner calculus.
Sociology: Uh, Psy, can you help?
Psychology: That's not how humans ...
Economics: ALSO MY SYSTEM WILL GROW EXPONENTIALLY FOREVER!!
Physics: *drops teacup*

@denny

Everyone: Hey Economics, your assumptions are not just objectively wrong, they are absurd.

Economics: *holding their fingers in their ears* "NA NANANANANNA I DON'T HEAR YOU!!! Free hands! Adam Smith! YOU CANNOT CHANGE OUR MINDS!!! We are a real science!"

Everyone else: *Picard face palm*

@JonxeHart @denny I find it fascinating how for so many people economics means neoliberal economics. I suppose especially in US universities and probably australian ones, there's not a lot of space for anything else.

@muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny
Out of curiosity: is there any school of economics that treats reality as something else than a special case we can ignore?
And if there is, are its/theirs predictions actually verifiable and falsifiable?

Honest question, as I have absolutely no knowledge of proper economics outside what trickles down (ahah) from, well, the rest of the world.

@pgcd @JonxeHart @denny because of the politicisation of the field, I think it's difficult. I find the theory that is popular with progressives these days is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Marxist economic theory has had a lasting impact. but like I say, I think it's a field that has been politicised so much so that mainstream economists will literally say the opposite thing to an MMT economist.
@pgcd @JonxeHart @denny but then part of mainstream economics is the idea of trickle down economics which as far as I know does not have a shred of evidence to support it.
@muaddib1971 @pgcd @JonxeHart
Yeah, UK gov is keen on trickle down again now. *sigh*
@denny @pgcd @JonxeHart they also believe in the myth of the compassionate conservative ...
@muaddib1971 I'm not sure 'believe' is the word I'd use. More 'find convenient to promote'.

@muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny
There's actually evidence to the contrary according to the IMF
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986

But saying so is apparently ideological (as opposed to sticking to a disproved theory just because it lines your pockets, I suppose)

Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective

This paper analyzes the extent of income inequality from a global perspective, its drivers, and what to do about it. The drivers of inequality vary widely amongst countries, with some common drivers being the skill premium associated with technical change and globalization, weakening protection for labor, and lack of financial inclusion in developing countries. We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down. This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class. To tackle inequality, financial inclusion is imperative in emerging and developing countries while in advanced economies, policies should focus on raising human capital and skills and making tax systems more progressive.

IMF
@pgcd @JonxeHart @denny which is somewhat odd as the IMF are one of the key international institutions that pushes neoliberal 'reform'.
@muaddib1971 @pgcd @JonxeHart @denny it was always a "common sense" plea for the GOP to gain votes and radically reduce government, the real goal. Like a lot of common wisdom, it's garbage. The rich is getting proportionally richer to how everyone is getting poorer.
@DanielTuttle @pgcd @JonxeHart @denny yeah, it's a zero sum game ... it's possible to grow the pie (wealth) but one of the best ways to do that is to do the opposite to the GOP.
@muaddib1971 @pgcd @JonxeHart @denny I prefer tickle-down economics
@joyographic @pgcd @JonxeHart @denny well apparently it was originally supposed to be a joke. So, yeah 😀
@JonxeHart @muaddib1971 @pgcd @denny you can sub “piss on you” for “trickle down” and it makes more sense. but piss doesn’t sell, i guess.
@skaficianado Only to a very niche clientèle 😉​
@skaficianado @JonxeHart @pgcd @denny so *that's* why it's been raining so much ...
@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny Behavioural economics starts down the right path. But then... it's basically sociology and psych so.
@toastfloats @pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny The founders of behavioral economics, Kahneman and Tversky, couldn’t even get their early papers published in econ journals, because they directly attacked the foundational assumption that people are inherently rational in econ matters.

@kingmob @toastfloats @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny

Makes sense - it's the reaction of most engineers when they're told cows are not, in fact, spherical.

@kingmob @toastfloats @pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny i only ever read K&T in psych class, never in econ.
@msnook @kingmob @pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny Because AdamSmith forfend we should ditch homo economicus in favour of models that more closely match the way the world apppears to function. Honestly, another idea we should introduce to economists writ large is Occam's Razor.
@denny @pgcd @toastfloats @kingmob @msnook @JonxeHart @muaddib1971
I think we’ll have to start with Occam’s Guillotine and work down.

@toastfloats @pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny

There is also some value to Veblen's critiques, as well as Evolutionary E onomics that followed later, although one should be circumspect in reading and evaluating.

@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny

Most of microeconomics operates in the real world, and it makes falsifiable predictions. It's just that its predictions are, well, micro.

It's macroeconomics that gets the discipline a bad name. Even there, there's the school of behavioural economics. But it's hard to generalise from that up to the macroeconomic level (hard as in no-one has done it yet).

@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny If you know any physics, one way to think about it is like classical dynamics; if you assume zero friction, the maths is easy, but only works in some special cases. If you bring in the full Navier-Stokes equations (for air resistance), then then the maths is impossible (no analytic solutions, you have to use numerical approximations), but the answers work.

Except economics doesn't even have the equivalent of the Navier-Stokes equations.

@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny Perhaps behavioural economics and some variants of marxist economics but I'm very unsure about the later.
@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny
We need you now, @Molly !!
But just in case she's busy - yes, there are entire fields of economics which act as though the rules of physics and nature were real:
@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny @Molly
Aaand I hit ctrl-enter because I'm not used to this interface yet :(
The link was going to be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics
Ecological economics - Wikipedia

@pgcd I found Behavioral economics and the work by Kahnemann, Tversky, Thaler, etc. super interesting when I was still studying Business. Kahnemann even got the Nobel price. Basically they showed effectively that the homo oeconomicus (= rational decision maker) does not exist.
@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny
Most mainstream economics taught fits into the Neoclassical understanding often with dips into New Keynesianism (basically what if we smash classical thinking into Keynes non-classical work).
Genuinely Heterodox macroeconomics is basically coming out of the MMT academics, with a few places splashing some Georgism around.
@JonxeHart @muaddib1971 @denny @pgcd maybe ecological economics? EM Schumacher's "small is beautiful" is definitely worth a read. Greer's "wealth of nature" is good too. Both view natural goods and services as the fundamental physical underpinning of our economy

@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny

Sure. There are many approaches and schools of thought. Check out heterodox economics. Post Keynesian, behavioral and some of the others that were mentioned by others in the comments.

Even neoclassical (mainstream) economists do a lot of good empirical work, and often disprove their own theoretical assumptions and conclusions.

@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny There is #DonutEconomy, invented by the British economist Kate Raworth. Very evidence-based and even gaining some traction.
@juliangonggrijp #DoughnutEconomics then, if it's British 😃​ Looks comprehensive, and interesting, thanks!
@pgcd @muaddib1971 @JonxeHart @denny the majority of a course in game theory is about optimal behavior is mostly not seen in real life