• PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Even in disciplines like physics, it is known that one simple set of rules can not be extrapolated to explain all circumstances. The study of aerodynamics separates mechanics into several ‘regimes,’ because things behave quite differently under subsonic and supersonic conditions. A similar dichotomy exists between traditional Newtonian mechanics and relativity. If the market oracles getting spit out by the Chicago School are treating economics like physics, they are the type of physicist who still upholds the plum pudding model.

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      they are the type of physicist who still upholds the plum pudding model

      It’s worse than that, even. The plum pudding model IIRC was always understood to be an approximation.

      Vulgar economy is less forgivable. It is essentially anti-scientific, by rejecting the possibility of economic laws which are not identical with appearances. The vulgar economists are like astronomers still clinging to the Ptolemaic system (geocentric model), because the sky in fact appears to rotate about the earth. Marx here plays the role of Galileo, using science to prove that there are deeper laws governing the motions of celestial objects.