L1,

Perhaps you could then give us a new definition of Physics or Chemistry? Economics is often called the grim science simply because it predicts and controls the outcomes of peoples lives irrespective of motives ethics etc, in much the same way as physics predicts the path of bullet and cares not for the consequences.

However, any politician with an ounce of sense will pay due regard to the economics of any policy, as economics predicts not only the positives but the consequences as well.

In that frame, the anti globalisation movement is based on populism and emotion, and is blind to the benefits of globalisation, and the huge consequences of reversing it, incl unemployment and poverty.

shadow minister
Economics is not a science, even though there is a Nobel prize for it.

I think connecting politicians with an ounce of sense is interesting, as most would agree that politicians will make decisions based on what the whip or a lobbyist has motivated them to do.

Globalization has filled the market place around the world with more stuff than can be consumed. I live in a third world country that is in the bottom twenty in the world, but the car and machinery yards are full, and the food and general markets are packed with people trying to sell what is all ready available.

What we do with the millions of "workers" no longer required to create an ever larger mountain of unsold stuff is what we should be thinking about, not how to make more stuff.

With all due respect to you and your opinion, you really need to think about that, not building more factories to keep people occupied.

Chris

Adam Smith's calculations have been debunked by economists of many stripes since Smith's day. Globalisation along with the neoliberal ideology which supports it has been called out by many economists including the Nobel Memorial Prize winning guru Joseph Stiglitz.

But the theorising of econowonks isn't reality, life in countries such as the USA is the reality of the economic effects of globalisation - catastrophic erosion of working conditions for the bulk of the people, serious decay of the built public infrastructure, wholesale transfer of wealth-creating economic activity to crap countries like the Prison Republic of China, secure jobs a thing of the past.

This is because globalisation is an open ticket to greedy pigs whose own hands and brains create no wealth whatsoever, but whose gaming of the system enables them to acquire and allocate wealth they haven't created, to scour the world for the most debased countries with the most cowed work force to produce goods to import at consequently reduced prices to compete on price with the productive workers of the home country (thus debasing ITS standards - a debasement expressed in Australia by the 2014 Budget and the endless attacks on the young unemployed who are its victims.)

'Calculated'? Try applying social science research and theory that demands a very clear and exact definition of terms e.g. 'globalisation'.

The likes of Malthus and Ricardo became the pin up boys of anti-immigrant, anti-globalisation, eugenics and nativist movements based on philosophy and beliefs from years ago.

Steady state economy with fixed inputs/outputs suggested by Ricardo allows nativists to demand closed national economy that needs to be protected e.g. stop immigration, border control etc., or 'the social contract' to protect workers.

Privately it's a small clique of nativist and neo-con elites the 'top people', with global business interests, who wish to protect their economic and social position, precluding access by others.

Not to say they don't have a religious bent e.g. in US demanding white christian conservatives have priviliges over all others, fits neatly with the elitist philosophy of founder of modern eugenics Francis Galton et al.. That is the religion of eugenics or racial hygience, need for autocracy and order aka the Nazis; many coincidences if one looks back a hundred a years or so. Movers and shakers in the US nativist movement long avoided any public linkage with KKK, neo Nazis etc., this has now changed aka Trump(a sympton)/GOP, UKIP/BNP/Tories, One Nation/radical right of LNP etc..

Why try stopping everything and potentially trashing their economies, not to forget parties too? The US electorate was 90% white generations ago and the GOP's constituency was 20% black till Goldwater; now the electorate is 60% white and falling with few minorities let alone blacks voting for the party of Lincoln; demographic decline..... and they don't like it.

However, many of these old elites still expect to run the show but if it's not possible through fair electoral franchise and democracy how can you maintain power? In the UK it's been creatiing angst, fear and rage e.g. an EU referendum, US it's been Trump, and Oz too e.g. 'cultural issues'.

John McCain described his radical GOP colleagues blocking all or most Obama govt. legislation as 'lemmings in suicide vests who simply don't care about consequences'.

L1

The definition of science is: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:" Which makes economics a science.

The conditions you are looking for occurred in the great depression of the early 30s.

EJ

All I'm hearing from you is emotion and politics.

Adam Smith's theory of trade has not been proven wrong by anyone, and while ardent socialists like Stiglitz (have you read his nobel prize winning theory? It's not very socialist at all.) have decried some of its results, the theory is sound.

shadow minister
An interesting definition, however I still cant agree with you and neither can many others. I suggest you put "is economics a science" into google and read what others have said. I believe it is a debatable point and therefore you can not state it as a fact when it is just opiniont.

Chris