Fields of Economics Tier List | Which is the BEST?

Which are the best and worst fields of economics? I go through and rank them on this epic tier list. #economics

RECOMMENDED VIDEOS

[akaosok]

I'm an economics student. I hate when people look so surprised when I say that I don't really like finance and that it is not what economics is all about. I just wish the general public had more information about the field.

[EstebanDegetau]

I had a prof say: There's no such thing as behavioral economics, because that would imply that there is economics that happens outside of behavior.

[abk-csdt]

Environmental and agricultural economics: "Are we jokes to you?"

[nobody-yhbf]

"totally unbiased when making my decisions here"

[harshitrawat]

You could have included monetary economics, public finance, international economics, growth economics I am genuinely interested to know about all these

[ignaciocanabal]

Really cool idea man !! You could also do an economist tier list, that would be interesting.

[SgtPayneX]

Imo S tier is Finance, econometrics, and macro. Everything else is below B for me

[LuisFuentes]

The D in macro crashed my heart. I heard Blanchard and Krugman cried when they knew this.

[peterdurko]

Please create economist tier list and their theories how they age with time💪🏻.

[oueslatimoez]

How can you put political economy in A and Marxian economics in F ? Marx was one of the most influential political economists in 1800s !

[swdegbm]

As a student studying agricultural econnomics I really hoped to see ag-econ or enviormental econ in this video... however it was really fun to see how some fields from tier S goes to B or C as the research trend changes

[ndbphzz]

Marxian economy is an integral part of both polical economy, economic history and development economics, I bet that if you went around applying its method without calling it Marxism you d make a very good impression

[StickmanA]

Behaviour Economics - B tier - great for thinking - helps with understanding - useful for policy.
Development Economics - C tier - too political, not enough results, what has it really done? Maybe it can clean up it's act.
Econometrics - S tier - drives current economic advancements - most useful - used to solve many problems regardless of complexity or perceived value.
Economic History - B tier - great for learning - important foundation.
Finance - A tier - runs the world - improves the life of nations and individuals - not S tier because it can be quite selfish.
Industrial Organisation - B tier - you put it there and I don't know heaps about it. Future looks promising.
Labour Economics - A tier -everything we do and see at the moment - endless use - Not S tier because of the bad politics dragging it down.
Macroeconomics - A tier - gotta love looking at the big questions and answers - Not accurate enough for S
Marxist - what you said
Micro Theory - B tier - good for learning and thinking - can still be applied for results.
Political Economy - D tier - don't know much about it but in it's current state sounds like it doesn't need to exist

Seems like I'm not a very harsh marker.

[vladislavpyatnitskiy]

What about financial economics ? You did mention finance which does not have any direct relation to economics and is focusing more on financial instruments and markets. However, financial economics is not finance and there is a clear distinction between them. Additionally, you have not told about the vital topics of financial economics, for example, efficient market hypothesis, which is still debatable issue. Furthermore, I think you overrate political economics and economic history, which are the least quantitative areas of economics and tends to be more humanities, and underrate econometrics, which brings necessary analytical and quantitative skills making it the most important class in a whole degree. Overall, it seems you have put more “PhD” topics of economics to the top and gave worse rankings to the more practical ones, which are fundamental of the understanding the economics itself. The only point where I absolutely agree is giving F to Marxist economics.

[igradj]

I disagree with your take on econometrics. In the past couple of years econometricians have been doing a lot of research in ML and data science, and how it can be applied to econometrics.

[eugeniogarza]

Hey! Can you please do a playlist capturing all your “how to do research” videos? This would allow us to consult them later easily.

[albertgomez]

Do you have book recommendations based of the tiers/topics?

[awesomebearaudiobooks]

Wow, man, just wow. With all due respect... You are an extremely well-educated person. I admire you. And yet, around minute 15 you suddenly turned such an ideologue for a moment...
Of course, you can ridicule me for what I say but don't underestimate Marxian economics. Please just don't. And I am not trying to seem edgy or something like that, to the contrary!
Marxian economics is, in essence, a combination of Economics History and Political Economy with Industrial Organization.

And yes, I might be a bit biased here because my grandpa studied quite a lot of Marxian economics (he has a PhD in Agricultural Economics and Statistics), but that is the thing... He was born in 1940s in the Soviet Union, lost his family during the Second World War and was an orphan for some time until he was adopted by a poor Russian family.
Living in the Soviet Union, he saw the great transformation of the economy, with tens of millions of poor people becoming middle class in just a couple of decades. He saw the problems of hunger, which terrorized Russia for centuries and were even present in 1930s, completely eliminated in the 1960s. He also saw how an agricultural country of Russia which had 20% literacy rates in 1920s could turn into an industrial superpower by 1950s, which launched the first satellite into space and even the first robot to the Moon and Venus. Most of these achievements would've been impossible if not for the works of great Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Kazakh, Armenian, and many other economists and planners. And yet in America, there is still this Red Terror mentality of ridiculing and minimizing Marxian economics out of habit and tradition.

And yes, it might not be very lucrative these days, because private businesses are not generally interested in hiring Marxists, but trying to just ridicule the huge amounts of knowledge and calling it ''yellow snow'' is not what a wise person would say.

If you (not you specifically but anyone) would just try to analyze history through the Marxian lens for a moment, that might not turn you into a communist, but that might provide A LOT of insights coming from dynamics which are usually overlooked by anti-Marxian ideologues.

[Ifritletsplay]

Your dismissal of Marxian is a disgrace. You don't understand whatever you're talking about and your B-tier rank for Econometrics is evidence of this.

[joseroldan]

I love your takes, couldn´t agree more. I love how economic history and development are up there vs the "hard facts" fields and it totally makes sense (not that "hard facts" fields are not important) because I think these fields allow us to ask the most important questions and they are incredibly helpful in coming up with answers for the big, structural issues like poverty and inequality