And the reform of economics is 50 years too late to save us from the worst of global warming.
I'll give you a pat on the head for trying your best, but your "science" has wrecked the world, and still can't see three months into the future. Externalities can't be accurately quantified by the dismal science. What is the value of a swampland drained? Of an extinction of a species? Please tell me what economics has magically awoken to value these travesties.
The endgame of labor in pure economics is still serfdom at best.
Globalization, championed by armies of economists for decades, has not just been a disaster but doomed the world by arbitraging what little environmental regulation existed into oblivion.
Even the most BASIC externality policy, the carbon tax on gasoline even for just the 20 pounds of CO2 created by currently burning gas, hasn't been instituted in 30 years.
In the 30 years of economics magically modernizing, workers have become, what 10x more productive and saw, at best wage stagnation. The rich have become ultra rich, and the governments of the world nakedly bow to their every whim.
And the "financialization" of the world. Oh please tell me that isn't the fault of economics. It has completely ruined higher education, housing, was responsible for the second-worst recession in American history, has ruined dozens of corporations such as Intel and GE.
Laying many of these things at the feet of economics is laughably dishonest. You're throwing crap at the wall and hoping something sticks.
The only legitimate point you've made here is about globalization, which has actually been part of prevalent theory. The rest is an irrelevant, sanctimonious rant that I don't care about.
"Externalities have been a part of economics for years"
Okay, why hasn't a carbon tax, the most basic example of an applied cost externality been applied yet? 1 gallon of combusted gasoline is 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. It costs about 100$ to sequester a ton of CO2.
It is chemistry 101.
Show me you can do the math. At a MINIMUM for the offset of JUST THAT GALLON OF GAS, how much should the carbon tax be?
"I've had it with your irrelevant sanctimonious rant"
Okay, bury your head in sand, professor. It's not your fault. It's not the fault of your, ah, "field of study", you guys were just publishing papers about meaningless game theory and "ideal conditions" equations that had no applicability to the real world.
A bunch of right wing zealots took your little brain teasers and overapplied them to the world to justify their positions. Milton Friedman got a little full of himself and overstepped his bounds and had fun yukking it up with the fat cats. Your central bankers just throw darts at the wall, print some fiat currency, and cross their fingers, and enjoy a nice pension.
Keep handing out your "in memory of Alfred B. Nobel" prizes.
Meanwhile, real science and technology marches on, and actually improves people's lives.
>Okay, why hasn't a carbon tax, the most basic example of an applied cost externality been applied yet?
Greed. Politicians are afraid to try it. But you knew that already and you're grasping at straws. Pretending that the majority of economists are against externality taxes like the carbon tax is a lie, and you've already been corrected for it. Not much more to say, but keep trying.
Do you see the difference? Do you see the collective shrug? Do you see the eye rolling, the cultural alignment with entrenched industrial interests? Do you see how they position themselves as the science -> policy gateway, and basically only offer "weak sauce" solutions? Ones that anyone with any superficial awareness of politics, globalization, undermining regulation, and bending the law would recognize that those "market based solutions" were designed to fail?
Can you see that, or are you blind?
That statement is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Worship of markets above all else. Contempt of regulation. Ok sure, it was 1997.
... why isn't there anything more recent? STRONG statements by the critical economic think tanks and departments of the land, those critical policy translators providing guidance to politicians... why isn't there a statement on par with the scientific community?
WHY?
One other thing... are you an adjunct professor or a TA? Even if you are chaired, you know about adjuncts and TAs. The slave labor class of higher education, part of the disenfranchisement of the current generation. The result of market forces to undermine the entrenched rent-seeking behavior of chaired tenured professorships.
Does anyone in your economics department care? I doubt it.
I'll give you a pat on the head for trying your best, but your "science" has wrecked the world, and still can't see three months into the future. Externalities can't be accurately quantified by the dismal science. What is the value of a swampland drained? Of an extinction of a species? Please tell me what economics has magically awoken to value these travesties.
The endgame of labor in pure economics is still serfdom at best.
Globalization, championed by armies of economists for decades, has not just been a disaster but doomed the world by arbitraging what little environmental regulation existed into oblivion.
Even the most BASIC externality policy, the carbon tax on gasoline even for just the 20 pounds of CO2 created by currently burning gas, hasn't been instituted in 30 years.
In the 30 years of economics magically modernizing, workers have become, what 10x more productive and saw, at best wage stagnation. The rich have become ultra rich, and the governments of the world nakedly bow to their every whim.
And the "financialization" of the world. Oh please tell me that isn't the fault of economics. It has completely ruined higher education, housing, was responsible for the second-worst recession in American history, has ruined dozens of corporations such as Intel and GE.
Congratulations.