Find solution
What Is Economics?

What is the best way to define Economics,  that identifies and addresses the SPECIFIC ELEMENTS that contribute to its RESEMBLANCE to a Belief-based system (ie, religion) and not a more scientific one?

  • A simple standard definition of Macroeconomics exists. Considering such diverse areas as: Behavioral economics—Environmental economics—Labor economics—Home economics—Urban economics—Social economics,—Environmental economics—Home economics—Information economics—Ecological economics—Financial economics—Applied economics—Normative economics—Development economics—Experimental economics—Neuro-economics—Thermo economics... The classic form of Economics is somehow funded by something that persists in the ironic situation of reason as an essential article of faith

  • Answer:

    The biased study of human power games based on wealth and money. But technology changes wealth and how humans manipulate each other. Economists ignore the destruction of wealth by ignoring planned obsolescence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of those different whatever-economics are mostly BS produced by our educational system and pseudo-intellectuals to make economics more difficult and expensive and prestigious. I would say read The Screwing of the Average Man by David Hapgood then read up on Game Theory while keeping what Hapgood said in mind.  Notice that economists don't talk about planned obsolescence and do not suggest that accounting be mandatory in our schools. So it looks like have economists have decided whose side they are on in the GAME.

Karl Smithe at Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Is there a reason you have (apparently?) rejected Lionel Robbins's definition? “Economics is the science that studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means that have alternate uses.” Because economics deals, in part, with "ends" rather than mindless cause and effect, and because the choices at the focus of the study rely on an understanding of counterfactuals, and because the vast tree of effects of human action spread out in the most complicated patterns, and because choice itself is unpredictable, etc. etc., economics is very hard to figure as a science in the manner of, say, physics. Expecting repeatability of human events economists must explain is not, in itself, realistic . . . or scientific. The inherent difficulty of the subject leads to all sorts of short-cuts, prevarications, disagreements, stalemates, etc. There are a lot of economists who don't seem mindful of the difficulty of their subject. Thankfully, great economists as different as Shackle, Hicks, Mises, and others have written very interesting and challenging explanations for the difficulty and eye-opening perspectives on the strange status of their science. Most modern economists blithely ignore such guarded council. To their detriment, I think. They often, therefore, merely raise their endeavor no higher than to a kind of scientism. A more philosophic perspective is in order. But normal science does not encourage that. indeed, it balks at that. All this being said, the work of experimental economist Vernon Smith shows that new approaches to the basic theorem set of economics can yield surprising results, and not, at the same time, degrade into pseudo-science.

Timo Virkkala

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.