In general, without some form of inflation, you end up with a deflationary spiral because people stop spending and the economy seizes up. No one will spend money if just holding it makes it more valuable. It then becomes a race to horde as much as you can for as long as you can. It's also, quite uhhh... perplexing for me, to not increase the money supply when populations are increasing; because, they're increasing the value of the money by increasing demand for it.
Central banks are the result and answer to reckless unregulated financial markets crashing, being manipulated, and destroying lives... Oh shit, kind of sounds like bitcoin, doesn't it? Everyone does this "central bank boogeyman" and thinks it should go away but they all absolutely ignore why they exist in the first place.
There's a ton of quality stuff to be debated in regards to economics-- this is not one of them.
People, and state economists, have confused inflation and deflation so much for their propaganda that right now is almost imposible to have a discussion around it primarily because different people don't mean the same things when they use those words.
Is the inflation you talk about consumer price inflation? is it assets price inflation? or is it money supply inflation? is the deflation caused by increases in productivity or is it caused by decrease in demand? Is inflation a product of regulations? of corruption? or was it caused by central banks and politicians' stupidity?
Those are all very different situations that require very different approaches, but because the "inflation-good deflation-bad" mantra has been repeated for so long (without any actual proof!) idiots now can't see past it, and think it's fine because they call themselves economists.
That's quite the number of negations you've got there. I assume you want to say that a mild inflation make economic sense, but I think you're actually saying the opposite due to the 3 negations (no one, zero evidence, bad).
How do you define scientist, and who else isn't included?
Like, micro-economists do a lot of interesting experimental work that certainly seems like science.
Macro-economics is pretty much entrail-reading because we fundamentally don't understand how the modern economy functions, and is massively political and hijacked by a variety of interests, but that's a subfield that even economists agree is problematic.
Actually to my mind that is all you need for science: observe, make a falsifiable hypothesis, try to falsify your own hypothesis.
That is... not most economics.
They have most of the same issues as economics (modulo the political stuff), but everyone seems OK with it.
Also, Popper's falsification is a pretty unrealistic account of how science actually works, and it only really works as advertised where you can run effective experimental designs (which economics and geology, amongst other disciplines) have a problem with.
If you have a theory that is impossible to falsify experimentally, we're no longer talking about science (at least if your idea of science is the pursuit of objective truth). Modern "science" running amok with people more concerned with attempting to prove themselves correct than find the truth doesn't change that.
> Popper's falsification is a pretty unrealistic account of how science actually works
That's the rub though. A pretty strong argument can be made that "science" is not working and that "scientists" have lost their way, if you look at things like the reproducibility crisis.
Even assuming what you say is true, if not experiments and attempts at falsifying your ideas, how does one pursue the truth?
How would you suggest we run randomised experiments on the climate (or the macro-economy)?