Does economics do more harm than good?

Does economics do more harm than good? And if it does, how would we know harm when we see it?

In 1849, the historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle referred to economics as the “dismal science.” The pejorative stuck, and is still slung by critics of the field today.

But what if economics is worse than “dismal”? What it’s…harmful?

The Rhodes Center Podcast: Does economics do more harm than good?

The Captain


Economists do a lot for the general welfare of the country and the world.

There is no end to the lies told to avoid paying any taxes. Is that the only issue in this thread? I think so.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I think it is totally disingenuous to blame economists instead of supply side economics which is just corruptions in order to…not pay taxes.

Supply side econ was never econ. There is no explaining it as econ. It is all just lies.

Friedman was proven wrong by Samuelson on every single thing. Friedman was an idiot…who did not want to pay taxes.

We are reindustrializing our economy. I know factory owners who have made choices not to listen at all to supply side econ after years of ‘believing’ the liars. No one is now offering supply side econ as a choice.

When I see the crap on the link I think supply side econ where it is not even needed to use the words “supply side”. All that is wanted is not to pay taxes.


Seems the problem is, the “thought leaders” start with their agenda. Then they find an economist to mumble a theory to support the agenda, making it credible.


1 Like

Until 2000 that was true. The 2000 to 2020 has been a change over. The 2022 period has just begun. The economists in the offices unspoken unless you dig for their reports are making a lot of valuable decisions right now.

Sometimes, Leap, you just leap off into the deep end of your world-view pool.

From Foundations of Supply-Side Economics, this certainly is economics. You may disagree with it, it may be wrong, but that doesn’t make it any less part of the field of study.

  1. The Model
    A change in the ratio of W* to R* will cause a change in the ratio of capital to labor demanded by households for production of any level of the household commodity. In addition, an increase in the absolute levels of W* and R*, given the same ratio of W* to R*, will cause households to substitute market goods for capital and labor in the production of a given level of the nonmarket commodity. We assume that an equiproportional increase in W* and R* causes households to supply more of both capital and labor to the market sector and that the supply functions for capital and labor take the following form…




I redacted my first comments here.

instead read about The Wealth of Nations book V. It is the only book out of the volumes that actually makes any sense in its entirety. Smith ends up only as a liberal.

The Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia.

What led Smith to become a liberal? The same reasons America went socialist under FDR. Basically supply side econ was so ruinous England was in a deep recession by the time of the American Revolution. Just as the US had the Great Depression because of supply side economics.

Honestly we are on an econ board. Please add materials with some integrity. You often add stuff here that is just crazy.

I did click on your link. He has in blurbs on the link discussion econ theories. The problem is in every instance he discusses his ideas he puts them together entirely wrong. I am not surprised you can not see that at all. But he has the buttons so to speak and turns them inside out making his own ideas worthless.

1 Like