|
Particular qualifications to address economic theory? What is this, quantum mechanics? There is a fight and a struggle over how the pie is divided up. To call the arguments around this "theories" which one must be "qualified" to discuss, is a laugh. It's more akin to theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Most economic "theories" boil down to who the money should go to. In your world, only people with "particular qualifications" are allowed to have a say on this topic. Also, what a surprise, the "qualified" people always say that what should be done is what is good for the heirs who bankroll their think tanks, endow their chair at their schools and whatnot. There hasn't been any mainstream study of economics for well over a century. There has never been actually. In the time of Adam Smith, there was an area of study called political economy in which, right or wrong, there was an honest attempt to study the topic. Although honest mainstream inquiry stopped before it happened, when "political economy" was tossed and "econom-ics" (like phys-ics? mathemat-ics? genet-ics?) came into being, the field had already been completely overrun by BS. Read Adam Smith, Ricardo, Say, Mill etc. if you're interested. There is no living mainstream "economist" who is not a complete BS artist. |
In the real world ("my world"), economics involves multiple actors in complex, dynamic relationships, which require precise, controlled examination, in order to derive theories that enable accurate predictions and insight into causes and effects.