What a joke. You blame me for moving the goalposts when I had to do so to get past your quibbles and obfuscations. That’s chutzpah. And you still haven’t answered the question. No, I’m not asking for a definition of “economy,” since the dictionary would suffice for that.
How could I show that the economic consensus is unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific when we haven’t even gotten past the first stage of identifying the content of that theoretical framework? You ducked and dodged with disquisitions on the nature of models and theories in science, all while avoiding the question at issue.
Again, how do economies basically work, according to a consensus of experts on the subject? If economies are systems for distributing scarce resources, what’s the scientific understanding of how the distribution generally happens, according to the consensus of economists? Only when you’ve identified that basic framework/model/theory of how economies work can we tell whether economics is substantively scientific or only superficially so.
And can you stop pretending you’re an expert on science? You’re an expert on pseudoscience (economics), which isn’t the same thing. You actually wrote that physicists don’t have a consensus on the nature of energy, chemists don’t have a consensus on the nature of molecules, biologists don’t have a consensus on life or species, neuroscientists don’t have a consensus on brains, and psychologists don’t have a consensus on humanity—and all because these experts disagree on some details. You confused basic scientific (tentative, fallible) understanding with absolute truth, and you did so to bring the sciences down to the level of economic pseudoscience.
You see, economists evidently disagree not just about the details, but about the essence of their subject matter (because economics is political), which means economics isn’t nearly as scientific as the discipline’s hyper-mathematical pretenses and Nobel prizes would indicate.
And the difference between the question I’m asking you, and the ones you’re asking me (about analyzing economists’ models and the monopsonistic labour market, etc.) is that my question should be easy for you to answer. I never claimed to be an expert on economics, and I’m certainly not going to waste my time studying economics further just to debate you. By contrast, you’ve already studied economics a lot, so you should be able to state the economists’ consensus on how economies work. I’m not asking for the sun and the moon here, which is why it’s so telling that you haven’t yet answered that question.
