this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
407 points (95.3% liked)

Political Memes

8097 readers
2896 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I personally think the biggest flaw of economics is how it takes "people are rational actors" as an axiom.

The fact that so many people can be convinced to vote against their economic best interests by supporting the GOP shows how fallacious that axiom is.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

economics is how it takes “people are rational actors” as an axiom

It doesn't, though. Maybe it's assumed in models for simplification. Other sciences assume ideal conditions (eg, frictionless media, conservative forces, quasistatic processes in introductory physics) for simplification.

Behavioral economists have won Nobel prizes for studying departures from actor rationality. They're aware perfect rationality is a simplification.

The fact that so many people can be convinced to vote against their economic best interests by supporting the GOP

They'd also refer to information asymmetry.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

This post is specifically speaking to the cases where they use simplified models to inform policy. Not all economists are stupid and it is good that the field is improving on its weathered past. But the “science” which is taught to justify oppression, that’s still also real propaganda that is being pushed. See i.e. the Laffer curve.

[–] sus@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

When you get to the informing policy stage, much "harder" sciences like pharmacology also get the same treatment of using completely disproven crap to inform drug policy. If you look hard enough, you can almost always find a study that agrees with your wildest biases and a PhD (often even in "good standing") who stands behind it and agrees with you.

That there are 500 papers that find the exact opposite of your conclusion is not much of an issue when you're acting in bad faith and have a friendly media outlet to voice your views

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 day ago

See i.e. the Laffer curve.

That's a bit reductive, too. I recall economists arguing the Laffer curve is valid & the US is on the low tax-rate side of the optimal tax rate, and that was decades ago. They'll show the deadweight loss of taxes & also point out its regulatory uses to correct market failures.

It's also not a recent development. The field is broad and includes leftists & Marxists applying the same methods to study different problems.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Literally in page one of econ textbooks they will say “a common exception to the rational actor theory is like when people need emergency medical services.” AND THEN they just ignore that GLARING caveat for the rest lf the book. Snake oil.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Another exception is how sometimes increasing prices will increase sales rather than the other way around.

Also a lot of the time, a discount will get more attention than the price itself. Like $1000 with a 60% markdown ($400 final) might sell more than the same thing at $350 with 0% markdown.

[–] sus@programming.dev 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I love the implication that a "rational actor" would choose death over losing money

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 2 days ago

hi guyes im disabled and have cancer checks bank account awe sheit well that has been a good life can’t afford this no more😊 ta ta all

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

You lose money every day paying for living expenses.

Let's make deal!

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Doesn't it also assume consumers have perfect information to make their choices in a market?

How informative is the advertising industry?

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

I've also seen that economists never account for naked greed.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

Yeah, but if you start getting into the irrationality of actors, you are all the sudden studying group psychology or sociology rather than economics.

Although I have always wanted to combine network theory with economics/finance understanding...