|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's that way due to design.
Instead of typing up a huge post, look at it like this: economics is a science. In all other sciences, you don't find a contrast between competing theories like you do in economics. However, this contrast in economics is actually fake because the data bears the fruit. But the politics of the matter is that treating economics like a religion in many stages (even in academia) produces the kinds of results that are being looked for.
Economics accepting much of the data societies have birthed is more blasphemous than a spherical earth once was. That's why Scandinavia is "evil socialism" yet their real world results are brilliant, it's why the national debt is a problem yet there is zero evidence to support this whatsoever, and why income inequality has a strong correlation with the sickness of an economy yet the powers that be brainwash us otherwise
Only in economics could we have done trickle-down for decades, have everything crash, have the data show us exactly that trickle-down doesn't work, but then keep thinking that we need to do more trickle-down. Only in econ...
I don't think you know what gets taught in Econ tbh. To give you an idea I'll just read off the topics from my graduate macroeconomics course.
General Equilibrium Theory
Elements of Dynamic Economies in Continuous Time
Elements of Dynamic Optimization
Elements of Stochastic Processes
I must've missed the chapter about taking trickle-down as gospel. I can honestly tell you I've never been taught at any point anything to do with this supposed phenomenon; only independent study has taught me anything about it at all. And, it might surprise you, the vast majority of what I've heard about it comes from non-academic sources - it really is, like most things political, not an objective topic at all.
As for your bit about the data bearing fruit etc etc. I'd like to know where you're getting all this from. If all you're doing is:
- Look at grafs
- Draw conclusions
Then you're doing it wrong. Despite what correlations you may find between, say, socialist-leaning states and whatever outcomes you believe to be favourable (whatever it is you were talking about before), this is almost never the entire story. Unless you're getting this from really legit apolitical academic sources I really can't give it any weight. The reason for this is simple, unless you can show causality, then your argument is meaningless. Learn to econometrics.
That is all.
|
Reply With Quote