system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that Neo-classical economics is a fraud, it's not a science, but an ideology & belief system. CMV

an example of our economic system in action, the plight of Bluefin Tuna worldwide. Industrial fishing is one of the most deregulated industries worldwide, an industry driven by the laws of supply and demand. The demand for bluefin tuna worldwide is huge, especially from Japan, the supply on the other hand is dwindling, with Pacific bluefin tuna population decline as high as 96%, how does this reflect in the price?.  Recently a 489-lb bluefin went for $1.76 million or about $3,600 per pound at a fish auction in Tokyo, as the demand remains consent and supply dwindles, the price goes up. But the true cost of resource depletion/extinction is not transmitted through the price, that’s what’s known as a negative externality in economic lingo. So it actually makes sense in our style of economics to fish a species to extinction because in the run up to collapse you're maximizing your economic advantage as the price of the resource rises. 

The economic system we use to order the modern world was created centuries ago by men who knew nothing of the laws of thermodynamics or ecology, but it's still taught to a million plus college grads a year even though it's failed miserably in reality.

My view has been changed. Jonwood007

>However, this does not make it fraudulent or ideological in itself. It just makes it a poor and outdated model. What is fraudulent and ideological is when political figures get a hold of it and go around acting like it's the greatest thing on earth and thinks the free market is the solution to all of life's problems.
gpt
Economics, neo-classical or otherwise, isn't an ideology or belief system. The various schools of economics seek to explain the emergent order of markets. Your question is quite muddled.

The situation you describe, overfishing, is a specific example case of the "tragedy of the commons." The tragedy of the commons is what results in unclear property rights being assigned to certain resources. If no actor in a market clearly owns a resource, then there is no incentive to preserve and maintain that resource for future value. This phenomenon is well understood by economists of the neo-classical variety, but it is not advocated by them as a belief.

Some economists (maybe most?) do advocate certain solutions to this phenomenon, but those solutions are separate from the understanding of the phenomenon itself. You seem to think this is some poorly understood situation to which neo-classical economists are hapless to explain and can't recommend solutions. On the contrary, many economists recommend a plural of potential solutions. Some advocate greater international regulation on overfishing, others recommend developing a system of property rights for fishing in certain areas, to provide organizations with an incentive to not overfish. At that point, the ball is in the court of politicians, who are generally hampered by their own ideologies and vested interests, and often can't or won't follow the recommendations of the economists.