in the wild. The whole Alpha dog bs was based on caged wolves from separate packs interacting. We now know wild wolves don’t interact like that at all.

Across a vast range of products/services, we aren't even close to a subsistence economy. If we want more of these things we can simply produce them. Fretting about the cost in dollars is pointless.

I don't understand your point.

That is why economics has a concept called "externalities." The obvious conclusion is that economic costs are non-comprehensive, at best.

Even so, positive externalities are monetized quickly by whomever notices and can get up and running.

Negative externalities are ignored (see: Climate Change) or farmed out to the public sector. Either way, those costs are paid either through government programs, human suffering, or disasters of varying degrees.

So, in a sense we are already ignoring costs -those we don't like and make people rich. We simply ignore the economic impacts we don't like. That being the case, there is no reason we can't ignore the costs that we do like. And we should. The entire idea is antiquated and unnecessary.

Plus, you stated that those costs are paid or ignored. Is "cost" abstract to those people who can't afford to buy sufficient food or who get downsized due to adoption of AI or automation in the workplace? Is cost irrelevant to small business owners whose profit margins have shrunk due to tariffs imposed by the president?

Economics is about making choices and it should be about making choices that take into account moral principles such as utility, human rights, and distributive justice. Each of these principles addresses the notions of "costs" and "benefits" in their calculus.

What is the value of a dollar? It used to be based on gold (which itself is an arbitrary standard). The situation is even more abstract today with floating currency. A dollar is worth what large numbers of people think it's worth.

Therefore, a dollar has no intrinsic monetary value. Neither does gold. Economics is a game that most people on this planet are losing -badly in many cases. There is no particular need for it if we set aside the idiotic idea that one thing is "worth more" than another thing in any real way.

We live in an economy where we exchange our labor for pay and we use that pay to purchase things we value. Are values subjective? Certainly. Do we want to negotiate the price of everthing we buy? Not likely.

While I agree with your point that our current system has failed a good number of people, I don't really understand where your argument leads.

Especially the section discussing how the Nobel Prize categories didn't originally include "Economics."
Decades later it was added to Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace, but it's stupidly taken seriously.

LOL if Hayek and Friedman can win it, what good is it?!

DURec

in decision-making. This is important work they have done and it helps us better understand why people make such stupid-ass decisions.

There are limited actions "decisions" available for people who don't control a resource

The models of decision-making are applicable to any types of decisions at any level.

Rec