Most people seem to only understand it at a very superficial level, applying some concepts here or there to this or that. In the end, none of it makes any sense without a firm philosophical background in everything up to and including the 19th century.

What do you hope to achieve with your economics degree?

>>7987092
>What do you hope to achieve with your economics degree?
a living

i plan on doing a second major in something i'm interested in

>>7987111
focus on your degree m8

if you study too much critical theory you might realize economics is bullshit

>>7987315
If you study just about anything, you'll realize economics is bullshit. . . At least to an unacceptable degree for an academic discipline. Obviously it can provide some useful insights, but for the most part economists don't know that any more about the economy than anyone else. Admittedly I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I know the most epistemologically sound economic theory is that which ties in with either game theory or psychology and sociology (i.e. basically behavioral economics).

>>7987352
But even behavioral economics are largely flawed and pertain to specific groups. Anyone looking into a field that attempting to understand underlying or universal human nature should look at the history of behaviorism in psychology and what the problems of behaviorism are.

>>7987092
this tbhfam

it's like asking what physics is like in a world where physics is 99.999999% studied by fat opinionated womanchildren

physics is cool as fuck.. but that ain't the whole story nigga

>>7987111
modern econ is basically either a cult or you're doing it just to get a job - economists don't study historical economics, they study really specific neoliberal economics. it's like the polar opposite of critical theory, and just as exclusive as sjws in its worldview

critical theory is cool, it depends what you want but there's plenty of good stuff as long as you avoid the extreme gender theorists, race theorists and dogmatic marxists

it depends what you want to study, but if youre more interested in analysing current phenomena/media/culture then you should go for it over philosophy, but if you want modes of thought, logic etc then go for philosophy - philosophy of mathematics/logic might tie in with economics decently for instance

even with doing critical theory you'll probably study some actually philosophy, just utilising it in specific ways

>>7987352

> but for the most part economists don't know that any more about the economy than anyone else.

nonsense

>but from what I know the most epistemologically sound economic theory is that which ties in with either game theory or psychology and sociology

so most econ since the 1980s, behavioral econ is nothing new and accepted in the mainstream of most econ models and general analysis, it seems you don't know enough to mouth off on this subject

>>7987435

lol define neoliberal, better off going with neoclassical

>>7987441
neoclassical is the intellectual history classification or whatever, neoliberal the moral/social

basically a cliche pejorative from the left

>According to Boas and Gans-Morse, neoliberalism is nowadays an academic catchphrase used mainly by critics as a pejorative term, and has outpaced the use of similar terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus and "market reform" in much scholarly writing.[6] Daniel Stedman Jones, a historian of the concept, says the term "is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises"[30] Nowadays the most common use of the term neoliberalism refers to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers", and reducing state influence on the economy especially by privatization and fiscal austerity.[6]

i'm a hitler though, don't tell anyone

>>7987459

not really, neoclassical and neoliberal are fairly distinct

neoliberal as a term is fine imo (particularly in IR theory) but the previous poster wasn't using it in a meaningful way so i was picking them up on it, especially as a lot of modern economic research has shown the issues around market failure and the need for government intervention - not very 'neoliberal'

>>7987463
calling out modern NEOCLASSICAL!!!!!!! economics as a cult and then using the pejorative neoliberal and then posting a thing that says neoliberal is often associated with neoclassical economics is pretty meaningful. the meaning is "neoclassical economics is a cult under the aegis of neoliberalism." you know that's the meaning because those are what the words say

> The term is used in several senses: ... and finally as an academic paradigm the term is closely related to neoclassical economic theory.[6]

why am i typing a post to a philosophical zombie

>>7987441
>lol define neoliberal
The root of the world's economic problems: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

>>7987435
>modern econ is basically either a cult or you're doing it just to get a job - economists don't study historical economics, they study really specific neoliberal economics. it's like the polar opposite of critical theory, and just as exclusive as sjws in its worldview
This. The academic disciple of economics is simply a ideological tool for reinforcing existing power relations. It has no contact with the empirical reality of human behavior.

>>7987481
>calling out modern NEOCLASSICAL!!!!!!! economics as a cult and then using the pejorative neoliberal and then posting a thing that says neoliberal is often associated with neoclassical economics is pretty meaningful.

not really, it's a mistake to really think so - there are plenty of neoclassical economists (basically most mainstream economists 90% plus of them) that are against neoliberal type policies, simply because people often misguidely conflate the two doesn't mean they should

> the meaning is "neoclassical economics is a cult under the aegis of neoliberalism." you know that's the meaning because those are what the words say

neoclassical economics was around before neoliberalism, what were they studying before?

i know what the poster was saying, the point was it's nonsense, conflating neoclassical economics with neoliberalism is nonsense

and to also say economics doesnt study historical data is nonsense - look at the recent work piketty has done, look at the work friedman did on the great depression etc

>why am i typing a post to a philosophical zombie

lol go quote wikipedia to someone else

>>7987495

george monbiot really? he's ascribing all of modern societies ills to a particular form of government/policy that most mainstream economics rejects, it's a trash article

>>7987503

yeah it has no uses for us at all i mean what topics could it be useful for looking at?

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2015no2/w21270.html
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22114?sy=114
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22107?sy=107
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22105?sy=105

what possible use could studies of retirement funding, effects of deindustrialisation, school methods and fuel subsidies have? nothing to do with the 'real world' and thats just a few from one journal in the past 2 months

>>7987522
another guy here. condense your posts m8. immediately.

all you have to do to make your argument is to show the oppositions. what is the term neoclassical opposed to. what is the term neoliberal opposed to. in IR it is opposed to realism, but that is not the case elsewhere. but that opposition provides the entirety of its meaning. I don't know, so you'll have to do it.

finally, he's almost certainly saying that the assumptions needed to make those kind of studies possible preclude the possibility of understanding those situations

>>7987522
disagreeing with a claim is not the same as that claim being incoherent or nonsensical

if it's a common enough claim to be cited - and self-consciously cited as a cliched pejorative - in a peer-reviewed journal article written by two tenured academics, it's probably not all that controversial a claim to make

you keep getting blown the FUCK out

>>7987543
>another guy here. condense your posts m8. immediately.

no

>what is the term neoclassical opposed to

depends who's talking but generally keynesianism, which if we're talking now is a clear sign someone doesn't know what they're on about because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_synthesis

this is a problem in economics, there are disagreements but not in the same way of say realism vs neoliberalism in IR theory (as far as i'm aware). there are saltwater and freshwater schools, but so much is simply agreed upon and empirically agreed upon much is tinkering around the edges

>finally, he's almost certainly saying that the assumptions needed to make those kind of studies possible preclude the possibility of understanding those situations

i know, but he can only really say this if he disagrees with empiricism - there's issues with predictive economic models but not with studies like those

>>7987549
>disagreeing with a claim is not the same as that claim being incoherent or nonsensical

true, conflating neoclassical and neoliberal is still nonsensical though, what's neoliberal about microeconomic principles exactly?

>if it's a common enough claim to be cited - and self-consciously cited as a cliched pejorative - in a peer-reviewed journal article written by two tenured academics, it's probably not all that controversial a claim to make

neoliberal? or conflating it with neoclassical? both terms on their own have their uses, but they are not the same

>you keep getting blown the FUCK out

keep telling yourself that

>>7987569
you may disagree with the conflation but the conflation has been regularly made by scholars with actual credentials

you are hiding behind "this juxtaposition is bad, in my opinion" when in reality the issue is whether or not you are familiar with the fact that the juxtaposition is commonly made, whether you disagree with or not - i don't really care what some econ undergrad thinks

a similar example would be someone accusing marx and engels of vulgar economism and you at first implying that no such comparison is even possible, and then when told that such comparisons have been made by famous figures for a century, you backpedal into "well i disagree." the issue isn't whether you disagree with croce or something, it's that you were unaware of perennial criticisms of your own metier, i.e. you don't know all that much about your own metier, i.e. you're an undergrad who has aids. QED

>>7987806
>you may disagree with the conflation but the conflation has been regularly made by scholars with actual credentials

you kept saying this, an example would be nice - one from a top ranking economist (in terms of output, citations) would be preferred of course

>you are hiding behind "this juxtaposition is bad, in my opinion" when in reality the issue is whether or not you are familiar with the fact that the juxtaposition is commonly made, whether you disagree with or not - i don't really care what some econ undergrad thinks

ah, now the ad hominems a very good line of attack, how about you actually explain why the two terms are rightfully conflated in your eyes? instead of hiding behind 'b-but some scholars have used it' - as i don't care what someone with 0 formal economic training and a hardly any economic understanding thinks(not really, I don't care about people's credentials but how about an actual argument is made).

>a similar example would be someone accusing marx and engels of vulgar economism and you at first implying that no such comparison is even possible

you can of course compare things, marx and engels materialism will lead to that line of comparison

>and then when told that such comparisons have been made by famous figures for a century, you backpedal into "well i disagree."

well, here the analogy ends - please cite these famous figures

> the issue isn't whether you disagree with croce or something, it's that you were unaware of perennial criticisms of your own metier

i am aware of criticisms - particularly as someone on the left i am also aware that 'the left' seems to have pretty much allowed 'economics' to be conflated with right wing thought, which is pretty much what happens with the conflations of neoclassical and neoliberal - neoclassical economics can lead to left wing policy, with a different normative position it can also lead to neoliberal policy - but i hope you can see the logical leap to then say neoclassical=neoliberal is idiotic

>i.e. you don't know all that much about your own metier, i.e. you're an undergrad who has aids. QED

nice, nice but you still haven't given an actual argument for the conflation

it seems that you know some things about marx - by the mention of croce at least - but you clearly do not know anything about the actual academic discipline of economics, please in the future do not confuse right wing politicians bleating on about neoliberal policies being economical and take them at their word

your logic would lead us to say 'well, look at al these prominent right wing figures saying they're economical, clearly because they're using it in this way it must be true and can't be challenged'. this is nonsencial.