Can economics explain more than sociology or/and psychology?

The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:

Economics explains nothing. It is descriptive only.

It is a poor attempt to describe the relationship between money and resources in human society.
It is classes as pseudo-science as it has the appearance of science but is fraught through with ideological assumptions that are mobilised by politics to favour the sectional interests of the elites that wield them. It barely touches on sociology and psychology, but some of its data can assist in those disciplines.

When was it?

When was what? :-s

Economics, aka THe Dark Arts, is at the Arse End of pseudo-science. Sociology and psychology can help explain economic. Economics has NO explanatory power at all.
Economics is a process of data gathering and guess work that attempts to retrodict how these data change, but when it comes to prediction economics is worse than weather prediction.
A single human is less predictable than the causes of the weather, and since economics tries to predict the ativities of millions of humans and many other factors is the reason it fails against and again.

When did the USA start to import vast numbers of people from Niger?

And by the way: How many have they imported till now?

They were heavily importing during the 80-90’s, providing $100k homes, jobs, and [liberal] voting tickets with instructions. I don’t know when they started nor do I keep track of the numbers. In California, the Mexicans migrate in huge numbers to the point that in Oregon, even further North, rather than teaching Canadian French (a close neighbor), the schools teach Spanish as a mandatory second language for the children.

The Spanish speakers are more than the French speakers, and French is merely a second language, whereas Spanish is a first language.

If I look at economics vs. psychology, it feels like apples bicycles to me. With sociology vs. economics I can see one swallowing the other more easily, sociological economics or economic sociology.

But with psychology vs. economics it seems we are coming at different phenomena, with overlaps of course.

If I want to know why Joe did something and not something else, in many situations I will get no answers from economics. Perhaps the category of people Joe is in, low income white guys with college degrees, will then give me statistical probabilities, though here sociology seems dragged in. But Joe as an individual, no. Then also all that Joe experiences, the sujective end of psychology, the interior side, would also not be covered by economics which is necessarily Behaviorist, or?

The same issues come up around interpersonal dynamics. Yes, explanations for category interactions - single working class guy exchanges smile with blah, blah women at bar…but again this is statistical. What Joe experiences and even does when encountering the woman at the bar can be guessed at, perhaps bet on fairly well - as long as one is a carefully better, has great statistics and uses a large sample - but it does not help me zero in on Joe.

Pscyhology also can do little to help with many of the patterns economics is focused on.

If we hold mathematics up as an example of measuring how much can be explained, then we can say: economics means much mathematics with many formulas and not merely statistics, whereas psychology and especially sociology mean almost no mathematics except merely some formulas and statistics.

Market economics is a complete fiction and construct especially concerning traditional social hierarchy. There is nothing natural about it and it is all built upon bullshit obfuscations or assumptions of human nature.

Not much natural but much mathematical about it.

Many people fear economics too, …

No, that is not true. I regard the developmental way from human nature to human culture and from human culture to human nature. Economics is neither a begin (basis etc.) nor an end (goal etc.) in my philosophy. It is merely a part of the two ways (near the middle of each of them).


And yet economics determines value. And value determines sociology, and the way groups of people relate to each other in evaluating the ways they may seek advantages or suffer disadvantages in value, in relation to each other. Finally, as their evaluative skills improve,as they are able to focus in on individual measurement of value. The social and individual values interchange in a process increasing discrimination.

The individual evaluation is based on narrowing of social discrimination of a wider array of value. After that is reified, or learned, can individuals as representative of their kind of value become nominally valuable.

So its economy, sociology, then psychology.


The root of all economics is power, control, manipulation, profit, and exploitation. We really need to address that.

The fatal flaws of sociology and psychology is that they tend to address or focus on things very dogmatically which is why both are ineffective until the lens of morality along with authority are removed. Both systems of thought largely exist by making appeals to authority.

I think that psychology is at the root of everything, then comes sociology and then economics.
Thus, economics explains less than both of sociology and psychology.

with love,

Economics, especially market economics, uses much mathematics.





Economics is not the number one. Economicis is subordinated but also superordinated. It depends on to what and whom.