Unlike economics, astronomy and geology aren’t obviously tainted by politics. Astronomers and geologists aren’t hounded on all sides by big business that tempts them with the revolving door to consultancy jobs with big paydays. See Part 4 of the documentary, “Inside Job.”
Climate science and economics are in the same boat? But climate science goes against the interests of big business, whereas neoclassical economics is in lock step with the sociopathy that flourishes in the boardrooms. Climate scientists certainly build on other sciences since the climate includes many natural processes. But there aren’t ethical barriers to experimenting on the weather or on how the ozone traps solar rays. Economists spin a narrative about people and our social interactions, so they’re met with an ethical barrier.
The socialist economist Richard Wolff has pointed out how Marx is shut out of American economics departments, so why should it be surprising that neoclassical/neoliberal economists don’t want to talk about anything that threatens their ideology, like how their main approach could be more propagandistic than scientific and objective? That would just be one more “externality” to add to the list.
The point about the Democrats is that the plutocratic control on American culture is widespread, so why should economics departments be immune to it? The burden of proof is almost slanted against you here. Are economists supposed to be superheroes for resisting the influence of big business? Even climate science, which is overwhelmed with data about global warming that can’t be ignored is prevented from affecting national policy because of that neoliberal control over the discourse.
I’m not talking about predicting the timing of a chaotic event like a major recession, nor would exceptional neoclassical economists impact the dominant trend. I’m talking about how those economists as a power block pushed for more and more deregulation for years as if doing so wouldn’t lead to massive corruption that would harm society. A deregulated market is supposed to be self-regulating (the “invisible hand”) because we’re supposed to be sufficiently rational. That’s where the models go wrong: the models are too abstract and idealistic, and they ignore basic psychology like the fact that power corrupts. They ignore the sociopathy in boardrooms and in the halls of power. They ignore the data. That’s why they’re pseudoscientific. The neoclassical program has been captured by big business interests.
Neoclassical economists push for deregulation. China and the East Asian tigers powered through with strong central planning. How is that not an obvious falsification of the models? Keynes conflicts with the neoclassical program. Therefore, the models in that program conflict with the data from East Asia. Your point about the relative merits of sociology and economics is a red herring.
And I grow weary of this discussion of economics. Just try not to be evil as a practicing economist. Is that too much to ask?
