Economists clash frequently with other fields like social sciences because such fields continue to use unfalsifiable and highly flawed epistemic tools like dialectics to advocate for debunked theories like World Systems Theory.
For example, when talking about the economics of healthcare (or anything else, but lets start with healthcare), the conversation is approached from the get-go under the assumption that:
1. Healthcare is already a free market.
2. It is possible for healthcare to be a free market.
1. is just not true. Healthcare, in the US and and all developed nations, is not a free market. But, economists will just assume it is, because they assume everything is a free market, and then apply free market dynamics. Basically, they skip step 1, and go to step 1000.
And, for number 2, it's very debatable. IMO no, healthcare cannot be a free market, just by virtue of what healthcare is as a service. But that's debatable, I won't get into it.
Point is, we immediately start our economic understanding based off assumptions on top of assumptions that come from free market thinking, thinking around IP, thinking about consumer knowledge, thinking about access, etc.
We make absolutely wild and unsubstantiated claims for free, and nobody checks them.
Which economist are you referring to here? It's hard to even see what specific policy conclusions you're critiquing here, beyond a vague strawman against "free market assumptions".
After all, it's not like the epistemologies of the other humanities stands on far more shakier grounds...
Well for whom? Another aspect of this problem is an economic solution can have winners and losers. An economic policy that invokes slavery as solution to labor issues may actually be 'logical' but clearly puts the interests of one group over another. Economics is just the science resource allocation after all. People have some serious biases when it comes to deciding policy on who gets what and how.
Deciding who benefits or not from legislation is not a Economist's domain, their work is descriptive, not normative. You're critiquing politicians here for prioritizing GDP, but that is divorced from your critique of economics. The economist will only tell you what they think will happen with regard to the economy if you pass a bill or not given the goals you've outlined to them.
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/big-beautiful-bill-impact-def...
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61387
Well you look at analysis here, do you then disagree with the predictions of the bill and the methodology used, and if so, what is your better analysis here with supposedly more refined epistemic assumptions?
Among the most dramatic cutbacks was the dismantling of the National Cancer Institute, which halted early detection programs for breast and cervical cancer. Funding was also frozen for immunization campaigns, severely disrupting vaccine access during Argentina's first measles outbreak in decades. The National Directorate for HIV, Hepatitis, and Tuberculosis lost 40 percent of its staff and 76 percent of its budget, delaying diagnosis and treatment across the country. Emergency contraception and abortion pill distribution have also stopped.
Prescription drug prices and private health insurance premiums have surged by 250 percent and 118 percent, respectively, according to official data.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/278391265/mileis-austeri...
Obviously, this is an article from the political side of things (I tried to cut out value judgements), but these are decisions made by actual economists like José Luis Espert, Agustín Etchebarne, Federico Sturzenegger, Alberto Benegas Lynch and probably a million others I'm not aware of.
Debt crisis is a real problem. We have borrowed more than we can ever repay, all nations, for the last 30 years. Both sides. Just drove right off the cliff.
All models start with givens…
You need a model to design an experiment.
This is how all science is done. You hypothesize. Then experiment.
Economics both describe and prescribe, so those models should be evaluated on their predictive power and on whether they have actually done any good.
Sure. Nobody claimed that. I’m just pointing out that being upset that a model makes assumptions is nonsense.
(I don't feel like anyone is upset?)
Nobody does this.
If you start talking about competition or consumer choice, surprise! You have made an extremely bold assumption: that healthcare is currently operating as a free market.
That assumption is actually, like, 1000 assumptions. Do people prove even one of those? No. They just move on and hope nobody notices.
And, well, we don't. We're so used to these economy falacies that they're practically invisible.
I am interested in what people have to say about them though.
1. DEI and identity politics prioritization 2. cost