If schools taught basic economics at a younger age...

>self-hating liberals and cucks, aka the "cultural marxists"
Those usually aren't communists. They're social democrats like Sanders.

>correlation = causation

yeah sure user people just love working in factories all day everyday
they even installed nets so that people could have fun jumping out the windows without being hurt

No, some of them are outright Marxists.

Even Sanders himself is likely a Marxist who just cosplays as a social democrat because most of the American public would never accept an outspoken communist. Just read up shit about his past, like endorsing the Sandinista regime or putting a Soviet flag inside of his office in Vermont.

The people who spout "learn economics" adhere to the one major school taken less seriously among economists than Marxism. Coincidence?

No because socialists would just stick their fingers in their ears rather than listen to logic and reason. They would still be the same dumb, violent apes they are now.

not if they taught socialist economics

This. If by "socialists" you mean planned-economy loving Marxist-Leninists and don't know the difference.

No

Higher education and socialism go hand in hand, unlike you anti-intellectual redneck losers

We got a real one here, folks!

Economics is not one school of thought. And it would be nice to see some arguments instead of this snobbish crap.

No.

it's true tho

studies have found left leaning people are smarter than right wing people.

Left leaning meaning liberal, not a pants-on-head retarded Marxist or communist.

>Socialist """""""Economics"""""""""

Nice maymay

liberal/social democrat/democratic socialist etc

but yes, not marxist

Engineer's syndrome usually ends in some form of fascism behind the layer of "communism" as fascists, especially Italian ones had very "elastic" approach to basically everything which was usually excused with "we're doing what works".

>""""""""Democratic"""""""""" socialist

Liberal/social democrat = smart, Noam Chomsky good at linguistics but bad at political philosophy.

george orwell

No, engineer's syndrome ends up with people endorsing socialism, because they think society can be easily engineered and planned. Even Marx claimed his ideology as "scientific".

Fascism has a lot of emotional / sentimental appeal so not really that attractive to engie autists. It's not really as utilitarian as you might think.

>economics ins chools
should be a compulsory class next to english math & science
at least for the imperial federation/commonwealth states.
add an extra year on to graduate schooling if req need b

Is engineer's syndrome not just an euphemism for autism? It is found that in high-functioning autism there's a fondness of things. So they are more likely to see everything as mechanistic instead of organic, the latter which the economy is.

>Nobel
>Memorial
>Prize

Pretty sure if schools taught basic economics there would be a major drop in libertarianism.

Every economics professor I have talked to has advocated some form of socialism and citied the failure of freemarket in america as a reason why.

This, if we taught systems theory at a younger age we'd wind up with a different ideological landscape

>failure of free market

As an American WASP, free market has worked really well for me.

There would be much less extreme libertarianism but I think most people would drift in a libertarian direction. Stuff like the fact that immigration, free trade, decriminalisation of drugs, removal of licencing, some de-regulation etc are generally libertarian but good for the country. Much less gold bugs/ancaps which would be a good thing.

I highly beg to differ

Don't lump all markets into one. In many cases free markets work well, in others they work poorly.
It's not socialist to have an overwhelmingly capitalist system with some government provisions ( healthcare, education, defense, legal system etc ), which is the best way forwards.

>form of socialism
Socialism and communism is absolute. There is no "a little bit of socialism". Having a free internal free market and external mixed market doesn't make your system part socialist and part capitalist. No, most professors do not advocate socialism. They usually advocate some form of social democracy.

no because socialists would get their hands knee deep in the school education system to promote their policies.

That kind of stuff always makes me laugh, implying that Socialists dont have their own economists.

Actually WASPs seriously depended on nepotism and outright corruption/bribery to maintain their social position throught the years. Not free market.

>Stuff like the fact that immigration, free trade, decriminalisation of drugs, removal of licencing, some de-regulation etc are generally libertarian but good for the country
>Citation seriously needed

aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.25.3.83
bernard.pitzer.edu/~lyamane/poptrade.html
drugsense.org/cms/wodclock - think of what that money could have otherwise been spent on...
Most licencing being bad is pretty self evident. Same with some regulations.

>self-hating liberals and cucks, aka the "cultural marxists"
Your post was pretty interesting until you had to ruin it by going full /pol/tard.

For now, economics is a literal pseudo-science like psychoanalysis. From the super-limited data sets we can gather from the previous ~100 years of global economic activity, so-called 'economists' have to cull an ideology that explains vast human movements.

But soon enough economics can become a hard science. Consider all the demographic data being fed into the internet combined with highly efficient future computers which can accurately model the 'illogical,' stochastic nature of multiple planet-crossing economies. Then we won't need ideologies like free-marketism or whatever because we'll have access to hard data about what works and what doesn't.

But I've read time and time again that it was economics mistake to want to be like physics.

It was behavioral economics and complexity science that showed it ain't so.

>But soon enough economics can become a hard science.

That's what they said earlier on. Nothing wrong with being a soft science.

Key phrase being "earlier on." People over-estimated the ability of the computers they had at the time. They might be able to calculate a trajectory to the Moon but they couldn't calculate the worldwide movement of capital. But I'm thinking about after the Internet has been around for hundreds of years, after quantum computers have totally replaced digital computers, after the divide between the technological experience and the "real world" experience we have now is totally dissolved.

We know some of what works: Markets
Free markets work rather well for a lot of things.
In other cases they work horribly but that's no reason to be against all free markets

Fuck off back to 1970's Chile with your computers.

You misunderstood, you could easily replace where I said "free-marketism" with "state socialism" or whatever economic policy you want. It was just an example. In fact I agree with you that the market "works" and will in fact be the driving force in promoting this technology that will contribute to economics becoming a hard science. Multinational corporations have a much higher interest in figuring out how to accurately model economies than national governments do.

Can you read? Did he say free market capitalism was perfect?
Jesus.
Capitalism is the best currently available, and generally the more free market it is the better off people do.

Isnt capitalism just the exploitation of humans self interest? sounds like behavioral economics to me

Not that guy, but that really is a sub group who push socialism and communism. look at bernie sanders for example

>Bernie Sanders
>Socialism

>implying suicides actually matter
who cares if someone kills themselves? if they do it in a way that hurts no one else and doesnt hold of traffic, it doesnt matter.
People are more prosperous now, so instead of just living day by day to feed themselves they actually have to find something that brings happiness which is harder than most people think.
its like saying
>its another "we pretend there isnt a correlation between economic growth and obesity thread"
when honestly, id rather live in the country with the highest percentage of obese people than the highest number of starving people.
Also, in the west at least, most people do not work in factories. We are no longer manufacturers.

excuse me? what economist takes marxism as a viable economic system?

I think lots of people's mothers would care if they killed themselves.

Has our political discourse become so impoverished that no one can understand the concept of populism anymore?

This is the most annoying meme ever.

While that certainly describes some people (the Venus Project is almost stereotypical), others flock to more irrational ideologies:
gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/nerds-are-nuts.php

>Hard core religious fundamentalists are somewhat atypical psychologically
>Scientists and engineers are also atypical psychologically
>Some of the traits modal within these two sets intersect
>Resulting in a disproportionate number of scientists amongst fundamentalists
>Science converges upon rock solid truths, which become the axioms for the next set of projections and investigations. Fundamentalism presents itself as axioms and clear and distinct inferences from those axioms. Both are fundamentally elegant and simple cognitive processes, but, the content is so radically different that the outcomes in regards to truth value are very different
>Mass literacy and mass society, as well as the decentralization of authority and power, likely made fundamentalism inevitable as the basal level of individuals with susceptible psychological profiles could now have direct access to the axioms in question (texts)
>Just as some scientists tend to take ideas to their "logical extremes" (e.g., the "paradoxes" of physics) no matter the dictates of common sense, so some fundamentalists take the logical conclusion of their religious texts to extremes
>No matter the religion it seems that modernity will produce faux reactionary fundamentalism because of the nature of normal human variation combined with universal inputs (e.g., the rise of normative consumerism, urbanization, etc.).

>Learn muh basic economics
This guy is literally a meme from the libertarian right bottom corner

perhaps i should have said "push more socialist agendas"
although he calls himself a socialist so idk.

absolutely, but does it truly hurt society as much as, say, killing someone? I would argue not.

The guys is a social democratic, if was an actual socialist he would be advocating for workers control on the means of production.

user, Populism as a political force hasn't been a major driver since the late 1890s. At this point we're now just appealing to as many people as possible with the most promises possible. The successful candidate is the one that can make him (or herself) appear to be the one that can help the most groups while at the same time not letting those different groups realize their interests may not be in alignment.

You need to understand this guy probably just skimmed over a few pages of the road to serfdom and is now totally convinced of his own economic genius. The fact that these types are incapable of presenting any other arguments than "read Mises" or "muh knowledge problem" doesn't seem to phase them.

holy fuck. i corrected myself and said
>push more socialist agendas
just for you bud. HE calls himself a socialist. Thats what im talking about. His views are more socialist than the views of someone on the right
Fucking pedants

Thank you.
People here usually talk about Bernie Sanders as if he were a Socialist, but he's a mere socialdemocrat.

The democratic's people republic of korea calls itself democratic and it isn't

>Democratic's people

KILL ME WITH FUCKING FIRE

Richard D. Wolff

Does any other economist take Wolff seriously?
The only thing he has got going for him is that he isn't an Austrian.

So, as it seems to me, the entirety of your arguments are appeals to authority.

You haven't offered any real substantial criticisms of marxist economics outside of "it doesn't work".

Why should we take you seriously?

>like endorsing the Sandinista regime or putting a Soviet flag inside of his office in Vermont.
>believing a real communists lies.
Sure buddy.

I'm not the guy you were previously responding to anyway. Why should I take marxian economics seriously? You haven't offered any substance or proof of it.