Bourgeois economist basically admits that neo-classical economics is pseudoscience.

[eppie]

Economics is no more dastardly than nuclear physics, even though our understanding of these has led world leaders to drop nukes and CEOs to become Ferengi. My understanding is that economists (and, incidentally, meteorologists) have the difficult job of attempting to create models of chaotic systems; I don't think that their goal is to sit around stroking cats while cackling at the wealth gap they've colluded with politicians to engineer. Solid economic models could be useful to everyone, not just exploitative Ferengi min/maxers.
-Lem

Well...economics tries to predict things, but always with a goal and an ideology in mind. And usually this goal is the goal of western rich people.

The fact that market economy can't work forever is that it doesn't take into account costs for keeping our planet livable. It uses as a given that some things are just for the taking, which is of course not true. Nowadays there are economists that play with this fact, but any reasonably intelligent person should have seen this 40 years ago......so for sure a famous economist.
Why didn't they see this? Or maybe they saw it but they had other interests at the time.

Please never compare economics with physics (or meteorology for that matter).



I would like to see more work done on questions like:
-how can we let pay people the real cost of objects and services?
-why is a cyclic economy so bad and can we do something about it?*


(I am not an economist and don't read much literature so it might be that some nice work has been done on this)

---

For economists that use this framework, ideology generally trumps science.

Yes indeed. Even though often this ideology seems invisible.
Things like ''we always need economic growth''.
'''or we can predict people's action and we don't want to take into account how companies and states try to influence people's actions and thoughts''