Obnoxious. The other "Falsehoods Programmers Believe" taught me things I didn't know and pointed out mistakes I'd made in the past. This is just a load of patronising progressive preaching which teaches me nothing.
Where you get political, subjective, and tend to fall into the next layer of oversimplification is when you use these things as premises... "People are not rational economic actors, therefore..." That's when you get in trouble. (Actually, that's one of my favorites... "People are not rational economic actors, therefore other people's irrational-by-definition choices must be substituted for the original irrational choices." What label you stick on the "other people" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the proposition.)
I'd also add something like "economic jargon does not exist and can be ignored". Both "rational actor" and "efficient market" are often conflated to mean something more like "intelligent and moral actor" and "moral market", neither of which work. What they mean in economics is a more mathematical idea, and is related to the plain English sense of the word, but definitely not strongly enough related that you can substitute the plain English meaning of the word and then proceed to do logic on it, let alone substitute entirely different concepts.
The Efficient Market Hypothesis has consistently held true, especially in the long term and with respect to indexes and mutual funds. Some of the implications and conclusions drawn from the hypothesis are audacious, but the hypothesis itself is sound. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecri/2013/238253/ http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijsp/article/view/1...
Price is absolutely a indication of cost and/or value, at the time of exchange.
Rational Choice Theory is empirically sound https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-07... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001
Although Classical Economics is empirically shakey is some respects, Neoclassical are not
I don't think that's correct. Economic theories make statements about the distribution of resources, which is an intensely moral question. They also tend to be tightly wrapped up with political ideology, which makes them even more moral.
Pointing out that the true father may have implications for a family and society but that doesn't make genetics a moral question.
When programmers talk about economics, they're pretty much always talking about the implications and political ideologies that surround them, not the abstract nuances of some theory for its own sake.
That's an extraordinarily strong claim that requires some extraordinary evidence and exposition. When economics intersects with politics, business, laymen, or reality I think it only has pretensions of objectivity.