- Our economic models (or any kind of models for that matter) are based on the perceptions of the world, therefore they can never be complete. The models also have to change with time and conditions, or else they become a generalization because of blind belief, not true evidence/data input.
- The problem comes when proponents of a certain model (whether Keynes or free market) take those models made for a specific instance to be an economic “law” (where in the world did that kind of language come from anyways? How can anybody who has no set of complete data prove that something is a law? The scientific methods are much stricter than what the economists use (in part because most scientific experiments can be repeated while changing only one variable), I don’t even understand why economics is a science in the first place).
- Proposal of using the online world to try out new economic policies and methods. I think it’s an interesting idea, but I am worried about the issue of unequal representation. Obviously, the online world only attracts certain demographics (young, have leisure time to spend online, relatively affluent), how can these tested models account for those who are excluded (and probably more marginalized?). What would be the result if this kind of model were applied to a developing country where the mentality may be totally different?
- Survival of the fittest: evolution has no specific endpoint; animals do not evolve to become better in general, they evolve to become better suited to a certain environment. Once that environment changes, whatever was best before is not ‘best’ anymore. Is this the same with economic models? Maybe there is ONE economic model which is best suited to a certain circumstance. But I would really disagree that “natural” economic forces will choose the best path for us.
- Can economics be non-judgemental? Can there be no value based assumptions behind an economic recommendation? My professors from food and resource economics classes always say that it is the job of economists to remain impartial and present all the policy recommendations only according to economic measurements of efficiency, income distribution etc. It is the job of the politicians to make value judgments on which economic policy to choose to implement. But I don’t think economists can be as apolitical as that (I’ve been obsessed with the notion of whether ‘apolitical’ even exists or not). Any kind of measurement criteria on its own is a value judgment. Plus, whatever model you base you calculations on also has a huge baggage of assumptions. How can we be completely impartial? Is that even a good goal? Should we just accept that we can’t and be more aware of it so we don’t fall into the apolitical trap?
- Food as a commodity? I agree with the idea that food is not a normal commodity. Historically, food has always had two functions. First to satisfy the cultivator’s hunger (and socio-cultural needs) and then as a commodity to be traded, but only in times of surplus. The problem of food economics currently, as I see it, is that we’ve often forgotten that the most important function of food is to feed yourself! Now it is more important to earn money from your food to go buy more food. That just sounds too bizarre to me. What about those who do not grow their own food, you say. Well, support policies that ensure those grow the food will always be able to have surplus to provide to the economy!
- * Plus, I have a huge thing about how economics usually just defines food as simply food. Wrong! Food has many categories. There are better foods (for you, for the environment, for the animals) and bad foods. You can’t put them into the same category for analysis and policies because they ARE DIFFERENT THINGS!!
- What really propped Germany back up after the world war? Was it simply the welfare state and free market or aid money? I think it links to an essay I wrote a while ago about how “the west” used mercantilism to give themselves a head start in their economy (while they demand developing countries to completely open their borders now!)
Posted, by tiffanyt in economics thinking Tags: economics, SDS, weekly reflections
Comments are closed