Economics as a modern science

[jake williams]

So, just for the record, it's just taken for granted by people with any sense that the modern conceptualization and practice of "economics", well, everywhere, is a whole bunch of bourgeois self-justification completely born of the academic subclass's desire to suck the cock off their capitalist funders, and totally unrelated to an intellectually honest pursuit of real understanding, right? Because I've suggested as much (albeit phrased a tad more politely) and gotten funny looks.

[ComradeRed]

Now explain how they abuse infinitesmals, they're using static equilibrium models...but static equilibrium is such that no change is observable, and so on and so forth.

[ComradeRed]

Perhaps a little more in depth of a reply would be good...

Economics as taught by conventional economists cannot be considered a science since science requires at the very least observation of reality!

Economists don't do that...instead they work out the mathematics of their model.

Worse, they ignore some of the most fundamental concepts in math.

For example, there is this notion of an "infinitesmal" in calculus. The idea is that it is the smallest positive number. With numbers smaller than one, when it is multiplied by itself, results in an even smaller number. So the smallest number greater than zero when squared should be zero...the smallest possible non-negative number!

Economists set infinitesmals to zero.

For a real world example of how this is bad consider the following. You are standing on the earth with your feet apart.

The distance between your two feet is close enough to being a flat surface we can say it is flat. So now the distance between two people can be extrapolated to be flat.

We can keep going until we say the world is flat. Which is observably wrong!

Economists have also ignored criticisms of their paradigm. For example, Piero Sraffa has demonstrated that it is mathematically inconsistent to use marginalism in a static equilibrium economy.

But Marginalism assumes that we are working with a static equilibrium economy.

So Marginalism is internally inconsistent. In science, one would typically look for alternatives.

Economists ignore it. They say "Yeah, but...we like Marginalism..."

That's strictly speaking unscientific!

There is more I could go into, but this suffices.

[Luís Henrique]

Most books on Economics give two different definitions of "capital", which are mutually exclusive, and have different ideological uses.

When it comes to explaining of what capital consists, we are taught that capital is a set of inanimated things - money, tools, machines, etc. - that do nothing of themselves (and this explains how it is impossible to capital to exploit workers - it is just inanimated things, it can't do anything!)

On the other hand, when it comes to explain what is capital's function, we are taught that it somehow contributes to the final product, which is, they say, the reason why capitalists, as owners of capital, are entitled to a part of the social product.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Isn't capital more akin to a process than a specific material object?

[I know I'm going against basic accounting rules here by saying that a proprietor's equity shouldn't be considered "capital," but then again long-debt is treated as capital in corporate finance.]

After all, Marx himself didn't equate $$$ with "kapital." For example, $$$ left in savings accounts, while earning interest, isn't "kapital."

[Luís Henrique]

So, just for the record, it's just taken for granted by people with any sense

Only if by "people with any sence" we mean people with a Marxist comprehension of how capitalism "works".


that the modern conceptualization and practice of "economics", well, everywhere, is a whole bunch of bourgeois self-justification completely born of the academic subclass's desire to suck the cock off their capitalist funders,

To put things this way doesn't help. I am absolutely sure that no academics think, "hey, how do I best suck the cock of my capitalist funders", even in more proper words. Nobody can actually live like that; academic economists earnestly believe that they are making science. Their pressupositions are ideological, though, and that - not their subjective intention to pander to capitalists - is what makes their work unscientific. To use an analogy, Ptolemaic astronomers probably believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, instead of consciously lying about it to earn the favours of the Church.


and totally unrelated to an intellectually honest pursuit of real understanding, right?

It is unrelated to an intellectually earnest pursuit of real understanding, which is somewhat different.


Because I've suggested as much (albeit phrased a tad more politely) and gotten funny looks.

Of course, just like if you suggest that God doesn't exist in the Curia Romana you are quite likely to get some funny (and even totally unfunny) looks...

Luís Henrique