'Negative effects? Quite limited'

Source please. There's a lot to suggest it's doing long term damage

Go and tidy your room

Yes, I know there are strange teenagers that have tidy rooms...

You're taking a very precise definition of 'neo-classical economics' which isn't what I was seeking to defend, so I understand your scepticism.

At university I had as my main text book Lipsey's 'Positive Economics', which was an attempt to introduce the basic concepts of economics that pretty much universally agreed. It's those concepts, which are, as much as anything can be proven, the 'scientific basis' for economics.

Just occasionally we get countries carrying out a strikingly new economic policy that allows us to see what happens. A recent example of this was Erdogan's refusal to raise interest rates despite rapidly rising inflation in Turkey. After several years of this, he finally returned to what every economist was telling him to do, and inflation is beginning to come under control

https://fortune.com/europe/202...

In Chile Pinochet's adoption of market economics after the coup against Allende lend to short term pain but long term gain, a pattern which was repeated when Poland emerged from socialism in the 1990s, creating what is now a dynamic economy.

Etc. etc. No doubt Bernanke did indulge in a degree of hubris in 2007; that doesn't mean that the central ideas of economics are flawed.

Noone argues that because medicine sometimes doesn't save every person from dying proves that medicine is a 'pseudo-scientific ideology'. The crazy success of China in seeing its economy grow from minimal to USA threatening is the result of its rulers adopting the principles of neo-classical economics, rejecting the idea that real development will happen any other way.

Go and read about the cycles of boom and bust in the 19th century. Those bought massive suffering to the people affected by them. We don't have those booms and busts any more - because we know a lot better how to run the economy to avoid them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

'That's not a given, it's an ideological position.'

Nah - it's a basic finding of economics; you know, the science that prevented the chaos of 2008 turning into a Depression like the 1930s.

Given that the economy works best without distortion, it is wise to have a lot of taxes with relatively low rates rather than a few with very high rates.

Given that drivers on private roads already pay fuel duty for the miles they drive on private roads, it makes sense for the replacement tax to be equally taxing such miles.

'Raine should never have been allowed to use the chatbot without parental consent.'

Yeah, right...

Sadly there's no reason to assume that it can exist.

Think of it this way; I learn a skill that enables me to produce a high value item. It earns me a lot of money. Then someone comes along and invents a way that allows the item to be produced at 1% of the previous cost. My hard earned skill is now worth vastly less. No 'new business plan' is going to maintain my income unless I move into a very different field, which I may not be equipped for (the 'teach the coal miners of West Virginia to code' joke).

The person who comes up with a plan that can indeed provide great jobs to theoe discarded victims of economic change deserves every possible praise. But sadly I don't think it is going to happen...

33 is the age hobbits are adults...

'If the employer's plan doesn't include paying a reasonable wage then their plan is crap and they need to go out of business so that someone with a better plan can succeed them.'

That assumes that such a plan can exist. Why do you assume that it does? If a firm in a high wage economy is competing directly with one in a low wage economy in a simple product, there's no reason to believe that the high wage firm can continue in the sector. You're indulging in an act of faith that is quite simply wrong, otherwise known as wishful thinking.

Yes, you're right that tariffs are a spectacularly bad idea, but the idea that 'more good paying jobs' can just be magicked up is a fantasy. An employer can only pay the workers what their output is worth, so if your industry is producing things that are difficult to sell, then you're not going to get a good paying job - especially if someone in a third world country can do your job remotely for a way that is 'good' to them, though poor to you.

The experience of Detroit should be a warning to those who believe that this economic law can be avoided; the car makers sold the same stuff year after year whilst Japanese and German producers made ever better stuff. The result is the devastation of Detroit that we can still see...

'a term of AI-generated slides being read, at times, by an AI voiceover'

Which raises the hard question of 'what is the point of classroom teaching'. It's the fact that this question hasn't been addressed well that is actually at the heart of this mess. Add in the fact that many academics know that their jobs are of little value and we have a perfect example of gatekeepers monetising their status for as long as possible. Add in the increasing evidence that a degree doesn't actually do the magic of getting you a far better job, and there's a serious storm brewing...

You get student loans to pay your course fees, which are paid back as via the income tax system, taking 10% of your income above a certain threshold. If your income doesn't reach the threshold, zero to pay - though interest does still accumulate. After 40 years any outstanding loan is written off.