,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
They used to call economics “The Dismal Science.” That’s because it was wonky and geeky to the extreme. It was a backwater field of study that, while filled with numbers, was actually the softest of “soft” science. 1
Then, it fell into the hands of libertarians, AynRandians, and other crackpots. The neoliberal "Chicago School” told an economic story that appealed to ultra-conservative politicians who saw it as a way to dismantle The New Deal. 2
“For every complex problem there’s an answer that’s neat, plausible, and wrong.”—HL Mencken.
The neat and plausible neoliberal story conveniently gave conservatives air cover to destroy the socially supportive state. 3
The neat and plausible neoliberal story conveniently gave conservatives air cover to destroy the socially supportive state. 3
Economics has never been a science, really. It has a lot more in common with a religion. It’s based entirely on theories that are not—and likely cannot—be proven. 4
The basis for economics throughout the 20th century was formulated by a guy named Keynes. In the early 1970s a lot of fundamentals in the economy changed, and many of Keynes principles failed to address them. 5
Doubt crept in to the world of economics, and into that vacuum pounced the neoliberals. Their ideas of trickle-down and austerity were idiotic, incorrect, impossible, and self-defeating. But traditional economics were wrong too! What was a person to believe? 6
Fortuitously, at the same time, people and corporations were amassing lots of money. People and organizations with billions of dollars always lose touch with reality. 7
The inanity of neoliberal economics is to billionaires like scientology is for movie stars: attractive, sycophantic, isolating, reassuring, and its adherents are totally immune to its downsides. 8
Neoliberalism and other economic theories are like the existence of god: you have to believe, and while there is no proof that god exists, there is no proof that she doesn’t. A good politician can cover a lot of miles with such soft, squishy, unscientific “science.” 9
So learning “economics” doesn’t really have a rational meaning. That’s like saying “learn religion.” While most devout people are peaceful, normal, good family folk, there are some devout people who like to bomb the churches of “others.” 10
So when you say “learn religion” you could be meaning study the Reformation or probe the Talmud. Or you could be meaning spend a year at a reeducation camp in the desert learning to make explosive vests. 11
So when you say “learn economics” you could be meaning study the effects of UBI on populations or the value to the US economy of free higher education. Or you could be meaning spend a year on Wall Street learning how to gut the American Way with junk bonds and austerity. 12
Saying that tech practitioners need to “learn economics” is very similar to saying that practitioners need to define the ROI of their work. The latter gives managers a fig leaf for not doing their job, and the former gives corporations a fig leaf for destroying our world. 13
So, yes, absolutely, you should learn economics. But you need to study it the way an anthropologist studies religions, not the way a believer studies the canon. 14
