I agree with that. Both in terms of your statement regarding the understandings of economists working in their field, and in a sense of trying to meet in the middle here, because I don't think we're that far apart.
My main objection is not against what specialists do when working within their field of expertise, it's that the main impacts of economics on society at large is via the:
> politicians or non-economists “playing with dad’s gun”.
And like the outcomes of the literal interpretation of that analogy, the results are often deadly, and usually for innocent bystanders.
Wealth often presents actions as if they are shown to be mathematically correct, via "economic theories", when they are primarily used as justification of exploiting others for more gain for the people that already have the most.
If economics is going to be beneficially applied outside of experts working in their field, then it needs to be corralled by bounds that consider the impacts on society as a whole in the real world, and unfortunately that's not what's happening.
My main objection is not against what specialists do when working within their field of expertise, it's that the main impacts of economics on society at large is via the:
> politicians or non-economists “playing with dad’s gun”.
And like the outcomes of the literal interpretation of that analogy, the results are often deadly, and usually for innocent bystanders.
Wealth often presents actions as if they are shown to be mathematically correct, via "economic theories", when they are primarily used as justification of exploiting others for more gain for the people that already have the most.
If economics is going to be beneficially applied outside of experts working in their field, then it needs to be corralled by bounds that consider the impacts on society as a whole in the real world, and unfortunately that's not what's happening.