[bjhoops1]

Golly, if I didn't know any better I'd think that maybe the field that deals with questions of power and resource allocation might not actually be apolitical, but may be primarily driven by the need to justify existing distributions of power and resources.

[tomrod]

Economist here. I think you're mixing political science (power distribution + more) with economics (efficient resource allocation + more). Happy to talk more if you're interested.

[neffy]

You may or may not be fully cognisant of how your field is actually practised, which the original commentator obviously is.

I have lost count of the times that senior people in your field, have happily admitted how their research is targeted towards the desired outcome of its funding source. Which the people funding the research are fully aware of, they just go economist shopping for whatever result they want to back their policy decisions.

The real issue with current economics isn't that it's not a science, it is that it's not practised scientifically. Those who do look at the field scientifically, have learnt a very great deal from the 2008 debacle - but they're not getting published where anybody is going to read them. But that is far from new. Let me present one of the great, sadly overlooked papers of your field:

David Jones, Emerging problems with the Basel Capital Accord: Regulatory capital arbitrage and related issues

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842669...

Written by a researcher at the Federal Reserve in 2000, he pretty much nailed the causes of the 2008 crash, at least 8 years in advance. His reward was that he got to be part of the cleanup judging by his subsequent career - efficient resource allocation indeed.

[FabHK]

I think things are not that simply delineated, and the use of economics to justify existing political arrangements is well documented (eg in James Kwak's book Economism).

[fallingfrog]

Power distribution = resource allocation. Always has, always will. The two are literally measuring the same thing: the amount of money you have is nothing more than the ability to direct resources according to your desires. What better definition of power could there be?

[awakeasleep]

Can you explain how resource allocation is not a political issue?

[bjhoops1]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Economics imagines that it's possible to divorce the two, when it fundamentally is not. When economists do attempt to divorce the two, they inevitable work from a set of political assumptions which reinforce and never directly challenge the existing distribution of resources and power.

It's a very adroit slight of hand that benefits the global economic elite: "Hey there, smart professional, I want you to think VERY hard about this problem of how to efficiently allocate resources. Oh but you're not allowed to question why I, the descendant of a colonial robber baron have the ability to personally deploy the wealth of entire nations, and your definition of efficiency is literally just return on investment, no need to worry about questions like 'will the planet remain habitable' or 'is this system in any way just.'"

[petermcneeley]

Whats the leading economic theory on the economic effects of minimum wage? (Theory- not empiricism)

[bjhoops1]

Good thread for more specifics on the myriad problems with mainstream economics: https://twitter.com/unlearningecon/status/920325123810447361

[closeparen]

Whether mainstream economics has issues is wholly uninteresting, unless you are proposing a different theory with fewer issues. "The academy is flawed" doesn't mean that what the populists feel in their hearts is correct. It's the closest approximation of the truth we have.

[dredmorbius]

Karl Marx: "Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power."

https://www.bartleby.com/10/105.html

[_wc0m]

"I drew an upward sloping curve and a downward sloping curve that meet in the middle, and therefore socialism cannot work."

The 2008 crash called for a massive reassessment of the political and cultural status of economics. It required honest economists to recognize their profession not as a neutral description of the world but as a tool for the powerful to exercise dominion over the rest of us. But "cognitive dissonance doesn't work like that", especially when doing so would mean giving up prestige, lucrative consulting opportunities, the ear of the government. For some reason, those other social sciences don't seem to get invited to nearly such lavish parties...

Of course, many people within and without the profession have been making this argument for decades, since way before 2008. But funny thing, the way power works is - those sort of people are never listened to. Why would that change now?

Edit: For a nice overview of these arguments I recommend the book "Economists and the Powerful" from 2012.

[candiodari]

You criticize the social sciences ... because economics is "just about justifying existing power structures". That seems a bit ... well, wrong. Or at least the assumption that social sciences is any different from the worst you ascribe to economics here. NONE of the social sciences, not even English studies, claim to be value free (that would be mighty inconvenient for them. Of course Hamlet only makes sense within the value system of England of that time ... studying it outside of that context just won't work. Likewise criminality happens within a context. Very few bank and ATM robberies in the Soviet Union, everything social happens within a specific context, directed by values).

But ... the social sciences. They're ALL explicitly about something in between studying and justifying existing power structures ... No exceptions. Studying (and justifying) existing society is what the humanities are about. It's the definition.

By contrast economics has a branch that is entirely value free (game theory, imho the hardest part), and most of economics likes to pretend it is value free (and whilst they're not 100% right at that, they're ... let's say 75% right), and only a small part is justifying existing power structures.

Social sciences tell the government what to do like priests do : based on what "it should be" according to how we see society. Economists are more humble, and merely try to say "your choices are A, B, C. These will lead to X, Y, Z". And yes, social scientists resent that the real world should be allowed to influence their perfect world, but ... only the truly insane would follow through.

Note that at no point did I say that makes social sciences worthless.

> The 2008 crash called for a massive reassessment of the political and cultural status of economics

No it did not. You act as if people listened to economists before that. In fact, I would argue the opposite is true: economists triggered (out of self-interest, because they were working at banks) the crisis BECAUSE people went too far of the reasonable path with loans.

That's the big problem that never seems to get through. There are many causes of the crisis, of course. However the actual cause is people ... bought and built houses they could never afford (in other words they used up more resources than they could ever hope to contribute to society). That's the cause of the crisis. The banks attitude and corruption and lying ... actually let those people enjoy their ill-gotten gains for a lot longer than would otherwise have been possible (lying on loans then buying ... ill-gotten is a fair description). Not indefinitely. And of course they're the easy target.

The crisis was far preferable to the alternative : that people would just sit on those resources preventing society from working.

But yeah ... "WEI ! They took my stuff ! And look, they're corrupt !". Well, yes, they're corrupt. That's bad, but sorry to say, it's not the problem.

And yet, funnily enough yesterday morning in the newspaper one particular French, poor family came into an article. They were so poor, it was judged by social workers, that they needed to be given a house (that's one thing France does). A large house that they had "helped design and locate".

Which poor family you ask ? The new cabinet minister. The woman makes 8900 euros per month, just from her main job (she has 4, though granted, they likely pay less), and the husband (who does not have published pay), I must say, likely makes more.

Social workers' judgement ? These people needed to be given a free, 3 bedroom home in a Paris suburb.