>>11556295>if economics were useful and correct, economists would be richI don't understand the reasoning behind this. I assume you mean that if economics were a useful subject to study, economists would be able to utilize their knowledge to make themselves rich. But you don't see this reasoning applied to other scientific studies like computer science or medicine. Of course, a competent doctor will probably earn a lof of money, as well as a competent programmer, but neither of them is considered to not be competent, if they are researchers with average income levels.
So I assume that by saying "if economics were useful and correct, economists would be rich", you mean that studying economics is different, since it is related to money. You mean that economics is useful only if one can use it to predict the future, and use this information to predict stock markets and make money by speculating with securities. To you, understanding how an economy works gives you some magic formula to predict the future events in an economy. But this is not true, since the future events in an economy are based on real life events, and future cannot be predicted.
Studying economics is useful, because it gives you tools to understand what could happen, if something happened. For example, What would happen to the employment level, if there happened a large scale supply shock. What would be the best economic policy to dampen down the effects of this shock to the economy. Of course, an economy is a complex structure, and a shock like corona virus has many kinds of effects, and many of these effects are not yet known. But economics nowadays can make better predictions based on possible scenarios than 40 years ago, so there has been a lot of progress.
Or maybe you were just baiting.
