Most of people in Economics are right-wing

Are you left?

Unless you're talking about those lunatic "praxeology" types then yes, the field of economics is based largely on empirical evidence.

This.

"Largely" is the key word. Economics also relies a lot on modelling more non-concrete concepts in the same manner as "soft sciences" which on the whole it has more in common with than say physics and such.

Because economics is based on reality.

Sociology and the other jazz doesn't need to survive in reality to be "legitimized".

No. But it is just how it is. The current economic left is on the right of the old one.

>and their debates are usually with economists.

The neoclassical synthesis is centrist more than anything, the idea that economists are right-wing is a meme.

For example most economists agree the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was good for the economy, hardly a right-wing view.

Yet we're walking onto a more and more centralized economy. How do you explain that?

Are Sociology folks taking the command in the economic bureaucracy too?

you only think right wing economists are the norm as they get the most publicity. Nobody wants a non hyperbolic article, it wouldn't get any views.

>Unless you're talking about those lunatic "praxeology" types
>those lunatic "praxeology" types
>"praxeology"
>lunatic

NAP's over, kid.

Nobody wants a crazy lunatic spewing leftist bullshit calling it "economics".

>makes a wild claim
>Isn't it obvious?
>Economics is an actual science
Lol OP being an alt-right retard again

>crazy lunatic spewing leftist bullshit
and yet again it shows how the right is always hyperbolic to present a opinion, which is a feature most journalists like to have.

>He still buys into the left-right dichotomy meme

>muh magic axioms

>Yet we're walking onto a more and more centralized economy
Bureocratize I would say,not centralized. Most production and bussiness,if not all in most countries are privately owned. Privatization has been the norm in the last 30 years,and true centralized economies,like Cuba are transitioning to more market like economies.

Economists are interested in what works, and making sure the economy is stable.

Leftists are only interested in whining over perceived inequality. Problem is, inequity does not necessitate inequality.

>Economists are interested in what works, and making sure the economy is stable.
>mfw almost no one saw 08 coming
Sure

Not him but don't you see how the economy is less and less free every Day due to government action?
That's left economics

I said they are interested in it, not that they are seers that can predict the future.

You're wrong. The current left just shifted tactics. They realized that they were just a bunch of intellectuals and couldn't bring about a proletarian revolution as long as they didn't convince "the people", the actual people, to join them. So they now base their activism on redefining cultural norms and slowly socializing the means of production through gradual reform.

t. cultural marxism.

>they are seers that can predict the future.
People did saw it coming you know. Traders did. I just find it hilarious you can say what you just said with a straight face after what has happened

What's your point?

I doubt many people saw it coming, because stockbroker suicide spiked several-fold after the crash.

What are you talking about? Economists predicted 12 out of the last 2 recessions.

My point is that 08 proves economists are more influenced by politics than pragmatism as you so claimed

>I doubt many people saw it coming,
The problem back then was nobody wanted to see it coming. Everyone in Wall St was making money so they didn't care about what could happen. People who bothered to do the math or have the courage to recognize a bubble saw it coming.

>As long as the music keeps playing, you got to keep dancing

Philosophy and Political science are mostly the same as economics. Personally I don't think neo-liberals should be considered right-wing. They are disgusting.

>Why?
Read up on Economics and you'll find out. The very pillars of the discipline are inherently right wing in their nature in the same way that those of Anthropology are inherently left wing

I'm not even referring to any one particular School or Economist, just the entire study of economics in general

This book is a pretty basic approach to the subject, it's what I recommend most people read up on if this is a topic they haven't researched before
>Also,
Fuck Milton Friedman and fuck his retarded-ass Chicago school of economics. Hands down the most overrated "Economist" of the 20th century. I don't even call that shit economics because it's very premise disregards everything we've already established and known about Economics

Well I fully concede that they are influenced by politics, as are everyone.

But what I was talking about is that leftist people have a tendency to think they are authorities on economics simply because they have read some Karl Marx.

Friedman would, but he died only two years before.

>>mfw almost no one saw 08 coming
Actually they did and there were entire groups of people who redeployed to take advantage of the situation (pic related)

Plenty of people told Bush to refigure his economic plan and if he had done so 3 years earlier, we might have made a clean getaway

>Fuck Milton Friedman and fuck his retarded-ass Chicago school of economic
So, which's the GOAT school in your opinion?

>>most of people in Economics are right-wing
How's that working out for our wonderful debt-based economy?

>leftist people have a tendency to think they are authorities on economics simply because they have read some Karl Marx.
You have no idea how much this shit makes my blood boil

>economists run everything

Based retard

>So, which's the GOAT school in your opinion?
Behavioral Economics. Mind you, it's a comparatively new discipline but they are on to something

>economists don't run their own field

Economists run our monetary policy and create CBO projections, which at least ostensibly guide fiscal policy.

Is that some spin off of Public Choice?

No, they don't. Most prominent economists work for themselves, they don't sit in government deciding on what to do.

And now you realize that Greenspan, Bernanke et al are all corrupt dirtbags who knows very well that their policies doesn't work.

>Not him but don't you see how the economy is less and less free every Day due to government action?
No. Left economies is the goverment/workers controlling the economy. Most countries are transitioning away from this,through privatization.

Noticed how no one in pic related are economists? Those 'plenty of people' should have been on the news warning WS instead

As opposed some right wingers who think they know it all when they read some obsure Austrian economists? But in all fairness I assumed you were claiming all or most economists are right wing

>Those 'plenty of people' should have been on the news warning WS instead
The fuck did they care? They were too busy taking advantage of the situation

>Left economies is the goverment/workers controlling the economy
Controlling economy isn't owning the means of production you dumb fuck. It's like saying the Nazis didn't have a centralized economocy because the owners were private.

The state is intervening and regulating more and more the economy. It is getting less free and it it socialism.

And the only ones who could have stopped it. At least much better than the government could

>Controlling economy isn't owning the means of production you dumb fuck.
Most private companies can choose their production dumbass. The goverment doesnt tell companies what to produce. All the countries have privatized things like telecom or energy companies,and those markets have been partially liberalized. The economy of the 60's was less liberalized in most sectors than it is today.
> The state is intervening and regulating more and more the economy
This is wrong moron. Sectors like the energetic or telecom have been heavily liberalized,public companies are dissapearing extremely fast,and the goverment dorsnt decide what they produce or not. Most of the economy is heavily decentralized,and no country is changing this tactic except Venezuela. Even Cuba is liberalizing the economy.

>plenty of people told George not to do something
He's the fucking president. Plenty of people tell them to not do everything. It's especially worthless in economics, where there are big names predicting an economic collapse every fucking month. Even putin said the USD would become worthless when China announced the gold yaun

>Is that some spin off of Public Choice?
Sort of but not entirely. It seeks to add a "human irrationality" variable. Essentially, it's a merger of psychology and Economics

A text I read a while back described it something like this?

>People don't follow the economic rules?
>People do things that don't fit neatly into demand and supply curves?
>People respond differently to different situations depending on stress, time, and what they see others around them doing?
>Behavioral economisst try to figure out how and why actual behavior differs from rational behavior (which would be the lowest cost, lowest risk and most profitable course of action when looking through the lense of economics)
>The answer seems to lie somewhere in the herd behavior or tendency for people to assume something is right because everyone else is doing it

That is an oversimplification but I encourage you to read up more on your own time

How is geography not a hard, empirical science? Rocks exist, that's empirically true.

Geography=/=geology

>Even putin said the USD would become worthless when China announced the gold yaun
Putin is not an economist

But yes, the study is very speculative in nature. At this moment in time, it's not a fully mature discipline and still somewhat in it's trial and error phase so things can only truly be understood in retrsopective.

What's important to understand is that there are multiple schools of Economics and Bush was ultimately following one (Chicago) that should be discarded as a failed experiment

The reason is the the difference in the basic conception of the individual.

For economics people are conceived as being driven to objects to consume them. A basic postulate is that of infinite "greed", ie. wants are never satiated. They call it the so called "homo economicus". So, in this conception, the person is an atom, and has his preferences subject to constraints, the agents is inherently free to pursue his wants. So, it's sort of like the right wing conception of an individual.

In sociology etc, the conception of the individual is different. The person and his wants are determined by society, in the so called process of socialization. So, family upbringing and society at large determine his behavior and wants and so on. So this is in stark contrast to the economics conception of the individual, and lend itself to collectivist thinking.

>And the only ones who could have stopped it.
What part of "The fuck did they care?" did you not understand?

>people saying that a economist job is to predict the future
>people saying a gigantic pile of shit about epistemology of economics

The core of economics science is philosophical, started with enlightment, with the same people that founded concepts such as "rational actors", individualism and social relations on a micro-level based composing the basis for society. This line of thought emerged through the centuries in some academical movements that inspired the methodology and the way that you make economics science (and science overall) today.

On the other hand, other types of social sciences also was influenced by some of this scientifical-rationalist approach,and they are more likely to be right-wingers or libertarians/classical liberals, like Max Weber in sociology.

shit i look like a dindu :^(

I think you are biased, because this is the shittiest explanation of methodological individualism that i ever seen.

>The goverment doesnt tell companies what to produce.

They tell them how to produce, that's almost the same.You have the FDA, the Fed, the DOE, CPSC and many others dictating what5 you can do with your own money, but the economy is more free than before?
What? You have Obamacare, the Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae, and 90% of children are in public education.
None of that exist only a century agot. America's economy is getting more and more socialist as the time passes.

>The core of economics science is philosophical,
Right.
> started with enlightment
Wrong. The Portuguese and Spanish from Salamanca started Econoics as we know.

>people saying that a economist job is to predict the future
It is.

t. Friedman

It's something of a myth that the USA always had a libertarian economic system. Right from Hamilton it had a policy of heavy government subsidy and intervention in industry.

>Libertarians
>Right-wing

Yeah, no.

>They tell them how to produce
They don't. They just regulate some form of productions. BMW doesnt produce the cars the same way than Audim most of the economy is mostly liberalized.
> You have Obamacare, the Sallie Mae, Fannie Mae, and 90% of children are in public education.
Social programs=/=socialism
> None of that exist only a century ago
A century ago they were more public companies in the world than there are nowadays.
> America's economy is getting more and more socialist
Can you tell me any american public company that is not a social programme? Even the military equipment is produced mostly by private companies. Habing regulations and social programs doesnt mean that the economy is socialistic.

If you want this type of historyline thought, economics started with the greeks. They even invented the word for, or maybe started earlier. But economics as we see today is an enlightment creation. The salamanca Priests was a great contribution on theories of value, but they did not invented a method closer to ours.

You're need to learn the difference between a model that corresponds to an event in reality with a nice margin of certainity (positive economics) and actually predicting the future. This type of simplification it's not accurate.

>>most of people in Sociology, History

most people I know who likes to read about ancient history are conservative. The people I know who have this "lol everyone in the ancient world was a retarded flat earth believing peasant" is a liberal

I don't understand this right/left labelling of economists. What is the criteria?

>They don't. They just regulate some form of productions
Yeah, that's socialism. The free market is the most ethical and efficient way to decide how things are going to be produced.
>Social programs=/=socialism
They are.The government is providing non-public goods, and that's socialism.

>A century ago they were more public companies in the world than there are nowadays.
In the world, maybe, but US economy was free and now it isn't.

>Habing regulations and social programs doesnt mean that the economy is socialistic.
Ok, let't change for corporativism. You
have a symbiosis between some companies and the State. Even if you don't see it as socialism (I think it is) it is far from being free, and quite less than it used to be.

And I'm not even mentioning how the Federak, government is the biggest spender and how taxes grew over the last 100 years.

Because stupid shit like sociology can only get you employed in a socialist system. It's just self preservation instinct.

>In the world, maybe, but US economy was free and now it isn't.
>Even if you don't see it as socialism (I think it is) it is far from being free, and quite less than it used to be.

Myths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?IR=T

Marxist are nothing more than wanna be smug, elitist, aristocrats who believe they are so fucking smart, they could bring about an utopia if everyone just did what they said without question. All this "le party of the workers!" talk is pure transparent bullshit.

Just say you didnt go to college and work some blue collar pleb job and watch as they thumb their nose at you. Its pretty funny

If your problem is about the certainty or uncertainty of the prediction, then what you say is true, but that is just a matter of degree.

>Implying whether they care is equal to whether they can

Can't you argue with your own words and not use WIkipedia?

Gotta laugh at shit countries with progressive tax rates thinking they have a free market. Flat rate or fuck off.

You mean make up untrue things, like you?

In economics, there's a debate even bigger than right x left. It's the orthodox x heterodox economics.Although people tends to think that orthodox = right wing and heterodox = left wing, that's wrong. Austrian economics are heterodox and they are, like, the most capitalist ever (on a insane level). But because this confusion, the criteria for political orientation of a economical theory is blurred. Orthodox methodology claims to be more impartial and strictly scientifical, so it embodies a lot of point of views. You have some marxists and keynesians using the orthodox methodology and they are definitively not right-wing.

As you have lots of governments in latin america with right wings dictatorships using left-wing economics as development economics and post-keynesianism.

Everything is a mess in economics

There might be some insights at 21:14 in youtu.be/szIGZVrSAyc?t=21m14s (the posed question is not that relevant to what he says)

Its fluctuates every decades based on american politics.

Right now the right houses the libcaps, the alt-right (authoritarian capitalists), and conservatives.

Left (democrat party) houses the socialists and the liberals.

>Yeah, that's socialism. The free market is the most ethical and efficient way to decide how things are going to be produced.
Did we just finish reading Atlas Shrugged? Fuck off with the Austrian Economics, that shit edgelord tier

>say a makeup untrue things
>don't mention which ones
kek

False premise. 1/2

False premise. 2/2

t. didn't understand Marx

>American democrats
>Left wing

Literally Ad hominem the post. The state can't pave roads, do you want them to decide wha's better for you?

Marx cannot be understood as it's literally nonsense.

>rich elitist want to trick plebs into making him and his NEET friends the new kings on the promise of utopia

I understand it perfectly

>Atlas Shrugged
>Austrian Economics

Why are retards like you allowed to post? It drags the overall debate quality down to utter shit.

See and Have you forgotten what was being discussed already?

Rand loathed Mises and Rothbard and Hayek said he couldn't go into Galt monologue.