>>1106716
Actual economists think both sides have some right ideas and both sides have some bad ideas, but taht's okay because they're more interested in how people make decisions, not what the talking heads on TV say the government should do.

>>1106716
Because they'd rather stick around and see whose theory is right.

The same way that physicists don't go to Hollywood and kill everyone there. They are resigned to people being morons and tune it all out.

Reminder that economics is a pseudoscience and it's just random people pushing their opinions. There is no consensus between economists, economic theories are still unable to achieve any kind of predictive power, and the theories rapidly come and go. A federal reserve study was unable to replicate two thirds of economic research without the author's help. They're sloppy and blatantly politically motivated in their methods, for example the research which led to Europe's current austerity programs had a spreadsheet error which led to a completely different conclusion than the data suggested. The economists then had the balls to stand by the faulty paper advocating for austerity because they "felt it was right."

Yet somehow you act like these hot opinions are laws of physics or something.

>>1107479
Imo this lacks an important point;i think its the fact that every theroy needs to be orchestrated well, if the fed coudnt even reproduce the studies on their own, chances are high, that implementing them by a bunch of random people wont go out well either.
What i think is that every theory( if its not just plain stupidest in its foundation) can work and get to the intended goal, but as always there will be idiots in the way.

>>1107479
Trying to follow the scientific method and falling short doesn't make it a pseudoscience.

By your logic we should never try to understand human behavior at all because you can never actually create a perfect control group.

Economics employs far more empiricism than any other soft science and while it's far from perfect it's not supposed to create some unified theory of everything. The intended goal of soft sciences is to inch your way painfully slowly toward the truth, knowing you'll never fully reach it but might gain more insights to make predictions along the way.

Soft science it is. Pseudoscience it is not.
Now back to /sci/ with you. I'm sure there's a global warming denialism thread you can participate in.

>>1107594
How can you treat it as the final say in all matters of public policy when nobody inside the field can agree on fundamental topics and the majority of its findings are known to be fallacious? I have nothing against seeking knowledge, but I'm honestly curious how you justify treating these goons like they're the all-knowing governors of society.

economists are generally too poor to buy bullets. The ones who have two nickels to rub together actually operate in the real world and lack disparity between their models and real life.

They see and run multiple regressions seeing people willingly overpaying for things and lack the wherewithal to get on the other side and start selling the things that people over pay for.

Whose crazy the man who sees an opportunity and does not take it or the man who is ignorant of his options. Same side of the Same Coin.

>>1107600
>
How can you treat it as the final say in all matters of public policy when nobody inside the field can agree on fundamental topics and the majority of its findings are known to be fallacious?

Because nobody else has definitive proof either, so you take the best evidence on offer whilst bearing in mind that it's not certain. When a psychologist analyses Trump and concludes he has mental problems of some sort, they can't be certain, even if 100% agree but it is close to certain.

>>1107715
Except in economics' case it's 30% certain.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2015/files/2015083pap.pdf

Can you imagine if the laws of physics didn't work two thirds of the time?