What is wrong with modern economics?
Sunday, January 8th, 2012Question by Who Cares: What is wrong with modern economics?
I was recently almost kicked out of my econ class for suggesting that economics is not the answer to what we should do, but what we predict will happen if certain actions are taken. The question of should we do it or not is a philosophical question, not economic. I told my professor that even if using fiscal policy promoted the general welfare, economics cannot say that the ends justify the means; that is a question for a philosopher. I told her that this is a major flaw in Utilitarian theory because one could say if we took 90% of the income of the top 1% of earners in the U.S. and spread it to everyone else, one could say that everyone is better off; the problem is that is it moral to take all that earned money from that individual? I also said that the value judgments of policy makers are of what they think are the value judgments of everyone, which are not necessarily the same. This implies it is virtually impossible construct policy to benefit everyone without hurting anyone. This concludes that monetary and fiscal policy are deeply flawed in their origins and implementation, therefore the best thing gov’t can do is get out of the way of the people and stop halting progress. Do you think this is a logical argument for the refutation of modern economics?
Best answer:
Answer by g
well, to a degree… except you go off the reservation with the assumption that “getting out of the way of the people” = progress… basically you prove that gov. intervention may not always be best or moral and then you just ASSUME that the other is better based on the fact that the gov. is not always great… apparently..
overall… it’s the same situation with everything… everyone doesn’t always agree, it’s just the “community standards” overall… same with law, economics, morality…
same with economics… morality is subjective, but if most people think that it’s a good idea, then it’s generally going to get done that way…
EDIT: in short, if I prove you’re stupid, it doesn’t mean I’m smart… I could also be stupid, even stupider than you… not saying you’re stupid, but just saying that’s the idea you present…
EDIT2: to apply your idea to law… you’re saying “since the courts do make errors and some people don’t like some laws… then that proves we should have no laws…” and it doesn’t prove that at all… it only proves that there are problems with the current system
What do you think? Answer below!
Related Modern Philosophers Articles
