It isn't an original comparison and I can't remember who I first heard it from but this seems very apt:
"conventional ecomonics has much in common with a religion. People "believe" in it to explain things that have rational scientific explanations, even when confronted by hard facts."
It is a bit like compareing the Househould budget/national credit card examples with the earth centered model of the solar system when we know it is heliocentric.
Like relegions, the "priests" and institutions do well, for themselves, by perpetuating myths and they don't really want to educate the masses or their power and influence will be threatened.
Keep shouting your angry voice from the roof tops (and substack)
If I May take just one of your points Tom and give it some thought. Lets look at Rational self interest.
1, The idea that humans act in their economic self-interest is not meant to be taken as a literal description of every individual’s behaviour, but rather as a useful and simplifying assumption that helps economists build models of how markets and incentives work. Like many theoretical assumptions in science, it's a deliberate abstraction—designed not to capture the full messiness of human motivation, but to isolate a key mechanism that often drives behaviour. As Milton Friedman argued, the usefulness of a model lies not in its literal realism, but in its predictive power. Assuming self-interest allows economists to explain and predict outcomes in everything from consumer choice to international trade—while still recognizing that people are influenced by altruism, fairness, and social norms.
2 Charity is not an augment agents economic self interest - Adam Smith himself made clear in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) that humans are not purely selfish. Economic "self-interest" includes a wide range of motives—people may donate to charity, volunteer, or even act altruistically because it aligns with their personal values, emotional satisfaction, or social reputation. These are all forms of utility. Tom you are 250 years late to this mate. Self interest dose not equal selfishness.
Your other points have similar flaws, you are miss reparenting what economists mean by the teams, oversimplifying it and/or just wrong. Its all a Stew Man argument. All the best Sam
He's talking about the deliberate misrepresentations that politicians use to manipulate people; he's not talking about economists' theoretical abstractions, as applied to predictive model-building, within the confines of academia.
"Here are some of the most pervasive fairy stories that deceptive politicians love to tell about the economy," is right there in the title.
'It’s because they know that "private sector efficiency" is absolute bollocks, and that the only thing privatisation is actually good for is generating unearned private profits for their fat cat mates.'
I agree with the right honourable gentleman. I will also add that neoliberal economics and the sham politics that underpin it all is the biggest modern scam played on many Western and certainly Anglophone nations. The underfunding of everything combined with assisted suicide and decriminalisation of abortion right up to birth is an utter abomination!!! What are we talking about here, continuing to give the already wealthy even more wealth is somehow better for all of us!!! Millions do not believe this and are suffering the effects of this crazy upside down nonsense, and people are freezing, going hungry, staying ill and even dying because of it!!! We are talking about a level of wickedness, deepening injustice, chronic economic divisions and godlessness that if it were happening in another country the MSM here would be constantly condemning it. Yet the continued gruesome economic and political system increasing the wealth of the few and making more and more people suffer economically is acceptable because it's the United Kingdom! The moral issue or lack of morality is the most dangerous.
Actually neoliberal theories rely on absurd assumptions such as we are all rational actors in the economic system. They place consumers and producers on an equal footing, as if each side has equal access to the information which drives decision making. They make ludicrous observations such as businesses will always succeed if the product suits the people and will collapse if they don’t. But we see good businesses go bankrupt all the time from extreme rent seeking behaviours on the part of capital to debt-loading by private equity and even raids on pension funds. Neoclassical economics assumes that the abstract notion of the ‘market’ will always tend to equilibrium, but conveniently ignores the fact that the economy should serve the people, seeing recession and depression as mere numbers rather than having the catastrophic effects on livelihoods that is the grim reality. In fact it’s simply not grounded in reality and history shows that its models have little or no predictive power as a result. It allows for such extraordinary distortions as ‘externalising’ any environmental consequences of manufacturing, for example, leaving the state to deal with the consequences, whilst simultaneously factoring in state intervention as disruptive to its models as the state can reduce capital’s primary intention of maximising profit. It’s a dangerous tool of capital, not a real academic study. It also deliberately ignores the power relation between Labour and capital. It has no use or place in its theory for actual human lives. Extraordinarily, neoclassical theory ignores the creation and role of money in the economy by the state and by banks, except for repeating the false ‘loanable funds’ story. So with no human beings and no money, I’d say it’s no economic theory at all. It’s a really powerful piece of propaganda though.
It is. I would also take issue with Friedman’s statement that while these assumptions aren’t true in the particular, they are in aggregate and the models make useful predictive tools. They didn’t see 2008 coming til the crisis hit them on the nose.
Agree with these. But why do you omit the most widely believed myth that taxes fund public spending? Taxes do play a vital role in the economy but funding government expenditure is not one of them. This myth helps to underpin austerity. Could you please use your platform to help people understand that governments create new money when spending, they're not reliant on taxes.
Very well expressed points.
It isn't an original comparison and I can't remember who I first heard it from but this seems very apt:
"conventional ecomonics has much in common with a religion. People "believe" in it to explain things that have rational scientific explanations, even when confronted by hard facts."
It is a bit like compareing the Househould budget/national credit card examples with the earth centered model of the solar system when we know it is heliocentric.
Like relegions, the "priests" and institutions do well, for themselves, by perpetuating myths and they don't really want to educate the masses or their power and influence will be threatened.
Keep shouting your angry voice from the roof tops (and substack)
Well of course. But it needs saying over and over and over.........(and reposting etc)
If I May take just one of your points Tom and give it some thought. Lets look at Rational self interest.
1, The idea that humans act in their economic self-interest is not meant to be taken as a literal description of every individual’s behaviour, but rather as a useful and simplifying assumption that helps economists build models of how markets and incentives work. Like many theoretical assumptions in science, it's a deliberate abstraction—designed not to capture the full messiness of human motivation, but to isolate a key mechanism that often drives behaviour. As Milton Friedman argued, the usefulness of a model lies not in its literal realism, but in its predictive power. Assuming self-interest allows economists to explain and predict outcomes in everything from consumer choice to international trade—while still recognizing that people are influenced by altruism, fairness, and social norms.
2 Charity is not an augment agents economic self interest - Adam Smith himself made clear in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) that humans are not purely selfish. Economic "self-interest" includes a wide range of motives—people may donate to charity, volunteer, or even act altruistically because it aligns with their personal values, emotional satisfaction, or social reputation. These are all forms of utility. Tom you are 250 years late to this mate. Self interest dose not equal selfishness.
Your other points have similar flaws, you are miss reparenting what economists mean by the teams, oversimplifying it and/or just wrong. Its all a Stew Man argument. All the best Sam
He's talking about the deliberate misrepresentations that politicians use to manipulate people; he's not talking about economists' theoretical abstractions, as applied to predictive model-building, within the confines of academia.
"Here are some of the most pervasive fairy stories that deceptive politicians love to tell about the economy," is right there in the title.
'It’s because they know that "private sector efficiency" is absolute bollocks, and that the only thing privatisation is actually good for is generating unearned private profits for their fat cat mates.'
I agree with the right honourable gentleman. I will also add that neoliberal economics and the sham politics that underpin it all is the biggest modern scam played on many Western and certainly Anglophone nations. The underfunding of everything combined with assisted suicide and decriminalisation of abortion right up to birth is an utter abomination!!! What are we talking about here, continuing to give the already wealthy even more wealth is somehow better for all of us!!! Millions do not believe this and are suffering the effects of this crazy upside down nonsense, and people are freezing, going hungry, staying ill and even dying because of it!!! We are talking about a level of wickedness, deepening injustice, chronic economic divisions and godlessness that if it were happening in another country the MSM here would be constantly condemning it. Yet the continued gruesome economic and political system increasing the wealth of the few and making more and more people suffer economically is acceptable because it's the United Kingdom! The moral issue or lack of morality is the most dangerous.
Actually neoliberal theories rely on absurd assumptions such as we are all rational actors in the economic system. They place consumers and producers on an equal footing, as if each side has equal access to the information which drives decision making. They make ludicrous observations such as businesses will always succeed if the product suits the people and will collapse if they don’t. But we see good businesses go bankrupt all the time from extreme rent seeking behaviours on the part of capital to debt-loading by private equity and even raids on pension funds. Neoclassical economics assumes that the abstract notion of the ‘market’ will always tend to equilibrium, but conveniently ignores the fact that the economy should serve the people, seeing recession and depression as mere numbers rather than having the catastrophic effects on livelihoods that is the grim reality. In fact it’s simply not grounded in reality and history shows that its models have little or no predictive power as a result. It allows for such extraordinary distortions as ‘externalising’ any environmental consequences of manufacturing, for example, leaving the state to deal with the consequences, whilst simultaneously factoring in state intervention as disruptive to its models as the state can reduce capital’s primary intention of maximising profit. It’s a dangerous tool of capital, not a real academic study. It also deliberately ignores the power relation between Labour and capital. It has no use or place in its theory for actual human lives. Extraordinarily, neoclassical theory ignores the creation and role of money in the economy by the state and by banks, except for repeating the false ‘loanable funds’ story. So with no human beings and no money, I’d say it’s no economic theory at all. It’s a really powerful piece of propaganda though.
Hi Debora, I am not sure if this is a response to me? I would be very happy to respond if it is. Thanks Sam
It is. I would also take issue with Friedman’s statement that while these assumptions aren’t true in the particular, they are in aggregate and the models make useful predictive tools. They didn’t see 2008 coming til the crisis hit them on the nose.
Agree with these. But why do you omit the most widely believed myth that taxes fund public spending? Taxes do play a vital role in the economy but funding government expenditure is not one of them. This myth helps to underpin austerity. Could you please use your platform to help people understand that governments create new money when spending, they're not reliant on taxes.
Inflation has become private taxation.
Also a way to negate that pesky minimum wage too.
Well said here!
Conservatives don’t understand the meaning of the word “efficient”, they think it means the same as “cheap”.
Centrists don’t understand the meaning of the word pragmatism, they interpret it somewhere between “appeasement” and “surrender”.