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 ...