Economics is Politics! ---- I have yet to be proved wrong! Is that just because no one has tried to prove me wrong? ---- An exposition of the insight that the "Dismal Science" is not really a science!.....
The Nobel Prize for Household Management.
The Nobel Prize for Household Management.
I personally have a great deal of respect for Nobel Prizes and there very noble;) intentions and founder.
I don't think there is really any precedent for rescinding any Nobel Prizes in any discipline. The "1949 Nobel Prize for Mutilation" is definitely a case for setting that precedent.
And while we are on the subject of the Nobel Prizes - the entire prize for "Economics" ("The Nobel Prize for Household Management") - the most recently instituted in 1969 - should be rescinded since there is no discipline nor science to award the Prize for. :)
"Economics is Politics".
Sociology is a far more valid endeavour.
Interestingly enough this subject was (understandably) loathed by Thatcher! :)
"Unemployment" for example is far more an issue that could be studied by "sociologists" than by "economists".........
Also, until around 1930 "Economics" was known as "Political Economy".
Adam Smith was a filosofer and founded no new discipline of any kind.
The 1976 Winner of the Nobel for "Economics", Milton Friedman, is listed as "influencing" the fascist war criminal and friend of Thatcher - Augusto Pinochet - undoubtedly nothing more than an evil thoughtless thug.
Milton Friedman is a figure comparable to Josef Goebbels (the Nazi Propaganda Minister).
I personally have a great deal of respect for Nobel Prizes and there very noble;) intentions and founder.
I don't think there is really any precedent for rescinding any Nobel Prizes in any discipline. The "1949 Nobel Prize for Mutilation" is definitely a case for setting that precedent.
And while we are on the subject of the Nobel Prizes - the entire prize for "Economics" ("The Nobel Prize for Household Management") - the most recently instituted in 1969 - should be rescinded since there is no discipline nor science to award the Prize for. :)
"Economics is Politics".
Sociology is a far more valid endeavour.
Interestingly enough this subject was (understandably) loathed by Thatcher! :)
"Unemployment" for example is far more an issue that could be studied by "sociologists" than by "economists".........
Also, until around 1930 "Economics" was known as "Political Economy".
Adam Smith was a filosofer and founded no new discipline of any kind.
The 1976 Winner of the Nobel for "Economics", Milton Friedman, is listed as "influencing" the fascist war criminal and friend of Thatcher - Augusto Pinochet - undoubtedly nothing more than an evil thoughtless thug.
Milton Friedman is a figure comparable to Josef Goebbels (the Nazi Propaganda Minister).
An examination of the "economics" of secondary education in England
I am not pro-market or anti-market.
There is no market.
What do I mean "there is no market"?
Well I mean mainly that there is no market.
I also mean there is no market in the sense of an abstract concept of "exchange mechanism".
At a vegetable market the man could give away all his tomatoes for free, and no one could buy any of them anyway even if he put a price on them.
There are people and the environment.
What happens between them is determined entirely by people - the only possible agents.
Je répète - "economics" is politics.
-----------------------
I read the article by the Professor of Economics at Oxford University in The Independent today about secondary education in "Britain".
(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-collier-private-v-state-heres-how-to-bridge-the-educational-divide-1867073.html)
He said:
A private school which offered only slightly better quality than a state school would attract no customers: if the basic model of a car was available for free, nobody would pay full price for the next model up the range. A market in purchased cars would still exist, but it would be confined to the luxury models whose rich purchasers were willing to forego the free basic model.
Some points about this are:
1) "nobody would pay" - people are free to pay or not pay so this is strictly nonsense. People are obviously free beings.
2) Even were this accepted, human behaviour is the subject of psychology and not "economics".
3) A "market" "would still exist" - what's a market? Does it mean a demand and a supply? Both of these are created by humans and demand is something that could disappear at any moment.....
4)......
He also writes:
Britain has its education system upside-down. Where the state should be providing universal, free schooling there is subsidised market provision. But where the state is providing universal, free schooling of a quality such that those with sufficient money choose to opt out, there should be subsidised market provision. If we did that it would raise the quality of the average while narrowing differences: but, of course, it isn't even on the political menu.
Firstly, if it is accepted that the state should provide universal free schooling in any context at all (which it is), then that is the end of the debate. If such education exists it should be of the highest standard. Hence no other education would be necessary. This may sound in some way "fundamentalist" but it is quite correct.
Secondly, "Britain" does not exist in this question strictly speaking.
Thirdly, where is the programme to put something better on the political menu?
Why the resignation?
One of the reasons for the ridiculous English education system is the "class culture". Not economics. "Public" Schools/Independent Schools are a cultural institution like the monarchy.
And like the Monarchy they are an institution that holds England back.
--------------------------------------
Do not misinterpret me!
Take my old school - Brentwood School in Essex.
Contrary to popular belief - and it is news to me too! - my old school was EFFECTIVELY a kind of State School for a big chunk of its very long and noble history.
The School Statutes of 1622 - written by John Donne - once Dean of Saint Paul's - state that the school is to educate the poor and the young in general of the surrounding area. There is certainly no mention of vast sums of money to be paid!
1n 1976 its County Council Direct Grant Status was ended by a Labour Government.
This was enforced AGAINST the will of the School Governors and AGAINST the will of Essex County Council. So much for local democracy!
Worse still - 3 years later under the Tories it was forced to become almost entirely fee-paying and a so-called "Independent School".
Is this a eupemism for business - rather than an a educational foundation?
I think we must not get blinded by labels. This applies to so many things!
Basically - I think Brentwood should in essence no longer charge fees - just like I think that Cambridge University should in essence no longer charge fees!
-----
My parents - even with the mythical "large middle-class wage packet" at their disposal - and even though I had a government Assisted Place - found it extremely hard to pay the fees even back then in the 70s and 80s.
They nearly bankrupted themselves and even had to go to backstreet money lenders!
Incidentally, government Assisted Places were introduced by a Tory government and abolished by Tony Blair I think.
...........
There is no market.
What do I mean "there is no market"?
Well I mean mainly that there is no market.
I also mean there is no market in the sense of an abstract concept of "exchange mechanism".
At a vegetable market the man could give away all his tomatoes for free, and no one could buy any of them anyway even if he put a price on them.
There are people and the environment.
What happens between them is determined entirely by people - the only possible agents.
Je répète - "economics" is politics.
-----------------------
I read the article by the Professor of Economics at Oxford University in The Independent today about secondary education in "Britain".
(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-collier-private-v-state-heres-how-to-bridge-the-educational-divide-1867073.html)
He said:
A private school which offered only slightly better quality than a state school would attract no customers: if the basic model of a car was available for free, nobody would pay full price for the next model up the range. A market in purchased cars would still exist, but it would be confined to the luxury models whose rich purchasers were willing to forego the free basic model.
Some points about this are:
1) "nobody would pay" - people are free to pay or not pay so this is strictly nonsense. People are obviously free beings.
2) Even were this accepted, human behaviour is the subject of psychology and not "economics".
3) A "market" "would still exist" - what's a market? Does it mean a demand and a supply? Both of these are created by humans and demand is something that could disappear at any moment.....
4)......
He also writes:
Britain has its education system upside-down. Where the state should be providing universal, free schooling there is subsidised market provision. But where the state is providing universal, free schooling of a quality such that those with sufficient money choose to opt out, there should be subsidised market provision. If we did that it would raise the quality of the average while narrowing differences: but, of course, it isn't even on the political menu.
Firstly, if it is accepted that the state should provide universal free schooling in any context at all (which it is), then that is the end of the debate. If such education exists it should be of the highest standard. Hence no other education would be necessary. This may sound in some way "fundamentalist" but it is quite correct.
Secondly, "Britain" does not exist in this question strictly speaking.
Thirdly, where is the programme to put something better on the political menu?
Why the resignation?
One of the reasons for the ridiculous English education system is the "class culture". Not economics. "Public" Schools/Independent Schools are a cultural institution like the monarchy.
And like the Monarchy they are an institution that holds England back.
--------------------------------------
Do not misinterpret me!
Take my old school - Brentwood School in Essex.
Contrary to popular belief - and it is news to me too! - my old school was EFFECTIVELY a kind of State School for a big chunk of its very long and noble history.
The School Statutes of 1622 - written by John Donne - once Dean of Saint Paul's - state that the school is to educate the poor and the young in general of the surrounding area. There is certainly no mention of vast sums of money to be paid!
1n 1976 its County Council Direct Grant Status was ended by a Labour Government.
This was enforced AGAINST the will of the School Governors and AGAINST the will of Essex County Council. So much for local democracy!
Worse still - 3 years later under the Tories it was forced to become almost entirely fee-paying and a so-called "Independent School".
Is this a eupemism for business - rather than an a educational foundation?
I think we must not get blinded by labels. This applies to so many things!
Basically - I think Brentwood should in essence no longer charge fees - just like I think that Cambridge University should in essence no longer charge fees!
-----
My parents - even with the mythical "large middle-class wage packet" at their disposal - and even though I had a government Assisted Place - found it extremely hard to pay the fees even back then in the 70s and 80s.
They nearly bankrupted themselves and even had to go to backstreet money lenders!
Incidentally, government Assisted Places were introduced by a Tory government and abolished by Tony Blair I think.
...........
The Chronicles of Human Stupidity (Extract from Volume 7,324.)
I went into a posh shop the other day.
At one point in the conversation with a slightly chunky man behind the counter - he said the following words - making a hand gesture resembling feeding his mouth with his hand - :
"You need MONEY to LIVE."
I observed:
"Can you eat money, good sir?
I am sorry! But you need :
"FOOD TO EAT!"
"I think you will find that you are alive anyway!
Or at least I think you are!
THINK LOGICALLY YOUNG MAN! Anyone can do it!
-------------------------------------------
A comedian has said that he feels like a fool for ONLY sending money whereas OTHERS sent prayers - or something along those lines - after the recent natural disaster in my favourite cuntree the USA.
Well MONEY can achieve nothing - only people can.
In the sense that it is easy to steal and embezzle money destined for Earthquake victims (as the comedians would know as they are often modern-day Cynics), sending money is perhaps as pointless as saying prayers.
Some people go to disaster areas - often firemen for example - and work for NOTHING!....
No money needed there!.....Apart from an air fare that they could have waived by the airline of course.
What I would like to stress is that MONEY in itself ACHIEVES NOTHING.
ONLY PEOPLE CAN ACHIEVE THINGS.
Do the actual dollar bills build the buildings or repair the walls?
No. People do.
"He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."
Johann Wolfgang Goethe.
At one point in the conversation with a slightly chunky man behind the counter - he said the following words - making a hand gesture resembling feeding his mouth with his hand - :
"You need MONEY to LIVE."
I observed:
"Can you eat money, good sir?
I am sorry! But you need :
"FOOD TO EAT!"
"I think you will find that you are alive anyway!
Or at least I think you are!
THINK LOGICALLY YOUNG MAN! Anyone can do it!
-------------------------------------------
A comedian has said that he feels like a fool for ONLY sending money whereas OTHERS sent prayers - or something along those lines - after the recent natural disaster in my favourite cuntree the USA.
Well MONEY can achieve nothing - only people can.
In the sense that it is easy to steal and embezzle money destined for Earthquake victims (as the comedians would know as they are often modern-day Cynics), sending money is perhaps as pointless as saying prayers.
Some people go to disaster areas - often firemen for example - and work for NOTHING!....
No money needed there!.....Apart from an air fare that they could have waived by the airline of course.
What I would like to stress is that MONEY in itself ACHIEVES NOTHING.
ONLY PEOPLE CAN ACHIEVE THINGS.
Do the actual dollar bills build the buildings or repair the walls?
No. People do.
"He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."
Johann Wolfgang Goethe.
Our economic discourse.....
Our economic discourse is culturally determined by the few and not the many; everyone knows it reflects the reality of next to nobody.
"Business News" and "Economics News" is rarely fully understood by anyone. They seem like the writings of a cult.
"Business News" and "Economics News" is rarely fully understood by anyone. They seem like the writings of a cult.
"Existentialist Economics".
Once one realises the truth - that Economics is INDEED and ALWAYS Politics
one is left with the vertiginous reality of "Existentialist Economics".....
All is determined by individual human action!
All that remains is what was there at the start anyway! :)
..........................................................................
One of the biggest powers one has is what one buys or does not buy! as Greens rightly tell us.....
But then that was always the case!.....
one is left with the vertiginous reality of "Existentialist Economics".....
All is determined by individual human action!
All that remains is what was there at the start anyway! :)
..........................................................................
One of the biggest powers one has is what one buys or does not buy! as Greens rightly tell us.....
But then that was always the case!.....
Human society does not actually need "money".
Human society does not actually need "money".
Niall Ferguson says in his recent book "The Ascent of Money"
that money is not only a necessity but one of humanity's greatest inventions.
(BTW every edition of this book has a prostitute on the front cover.
Thereby hangs some obervations perhaps....)
Hoyever, if one lets out the Vulcan in oneself for a tiny moment one should see that money of any kind is not needed at all by any human society.
It is not a moral issue. It is a logical issue.
............................
Much further discussion is needed from this point - but it would be fruitful!...
A point to make is that ultimately "Money" - far from being an asset or an advantage for humanity - is perhaps IN ITSELF a hindrance to progress!......
....
Niall Ferguson says in his recent book "The Ascent of Money"
that money is not only a necessity but one of humanity's greatest inventions.
(BTW every edition of this book has a prostitute on the front cover.
Thereby hangs some obervations perhaps....)
Hoyever, if one lets out the Vulcan in oneself for a tiny moment one should see that money of any kind is not needed at all by any human society.
It is not a moral issue. It is a logical issue.
............................
Much further discussion is needed from this point - but it would be fruitful!...
A point to make is that ultimately "Money" - far from being an asset or an advantage for humanity - is perhaps IN ITSELF a hindrance to progress!......
....
Lincoln Cathedral
This may sound really strange but every time I hear something along the lines of: "Lincoln Cathedral needs 10 million pounds to survive", my thought process is as follows:
They need that money to pay someone to repair the Cathedral. Agreed.
Someone like a construction company or something like that. Agreed?
Following my logic? Tell me any flaws in my logic please.
Right. So the construction company are probably quite rich.
So I do think - and please forgive me for this naïve simplicity - couldn't the building firm repair Lincoln Cathedral er... for free.. for nothing?
I know this is heresy in the religion of economics but there you go.
You may say "Well the construction company need the money to buy the bricks to repair Lincoln Cathedral."
Fair enough.
But can't they get at least some bricks for free? gratis? It's Lincoln Cathedral FFS - for goodness sake!
:)
Discuss.
And another thing was - why should it actually matter if the "economy" - whatever that is - doesn't "grow"?
Does it matter?
-----
I secretly suspect economics is a load of bollocks - and I am thinking of working this out a bit more......
They need that money to pay someone to repair the Cathedral. Agreed.
Someone like a construction company or something like that. Agreed?
Following my logic? Tell me any flaws in my logic please.
Right. So the construction company are probably quite rich.
So I do think - and please forgive me for this naïve simplicity - couldn't the building firm repair Lincoln Cathedral er... for free.. for nothing?
I know this is heresy in the religion of economics but there you go.
You may say "Well the construction company need the money to buy the bricks to repair Lincoln Cathedral."
Fair enough.
But can't they get at least some bricks for free? gratis? It's Lincoln Cathedral FFS - for goodness sake!
:)
Discuss.
And another thing was - why should it actually matter if the "economy" - whatever that is - doesn't "grow"?
Does it matter?
-----
I secretly suspect economics is a load of bollocks - and I am thinking of working this out a bit more......
"Economics: The Science of Lies".
I recently read an excellent book called: "Psychiatry: The Science of Lies".
I am waiting for someone to write: "Economics: The Science of Lies".
This book is potentially a very long one. :)
I am waiting for someone to write: "Economics: The Science of Lies".
This book is potentially a very long one. :)
There is no such as an "economy".
There is no such thing as an economy.
If Thatcher can say "There is no such thing as a society" then I can say "There is no such thing as an economy", which may sound equally ridiculous. I think it is less ridiculous.
There is no such thing as an economy. There cannot be an economy where an economy is defined as "the total value of the goods and services in a society", since this is defined by humans and cannot have an objective definition in this case.
On the BBC or in a newspaper "economy" usually means "the total value of the goods and services in a political state". I assume that's what they mean anyway. Like when they say "the economy grew by 2% this year". Look up "economy" elsewhere and you'll find other definitions. Interesting.
The "total value of the goods and services in a society" is only ever an opinion. In my opinion, I wouldn't give you a carrot for the goods and services contained in..er..wherever... let's say Watford Gap Service Station on the M1. Someone else might say they were worth a fiver. Someone else a tenner. :) Someone else might say two carrots... etc.
Also this assumes we can agree on what constitutes a "good" or a "service" ... Well you may say anything that has a cash value... Well, anything can have a cash value if you pay cash for it....
I work in a second hand bookshop and I recently found a heap of books on economics, including a few dictionaries of economics. I looked up "economy" in the glossary/dictionary of each book and almost every one had a different definition.
The Victorians maybe had it right when they tended to call it "Political Economy" like in "The Importance of Being Earnest".
There cannot really be economic laws. Since at any time humans could act in any way.
Prices and demand are essentially created by humans and can be changed at any time by humans. Humans could refuse to buy or sell anything at all at any time. Hence strictly speaking there can be no economic laws.... Economics is Politics.
-------
The term "society" obviously refers - apart from anything else - to a concept, as does the term "mind"....
The concept of a society is probably a valid concept.
-------
The use of the term "economy" to refer to a "system" is still obviously very vague.
-------------------------
Another point about this is that it is probably impossible to disbelieve in (the existence of ) "society" and yet at the same time to believe in (the existence of) an "economy"; this impossible position would seem to be the position of some on the political right.
If you disbelieve in "society", then surely a fortiori you must disbelieve in an "economy".
?
.....
Economics need radical re-assessment.
Try here for some of it:
www.neweconomics.org
If Thatcher can say "There is no such thing as a society" then I can say "There is no such thing as an economy", which may sound equally ridiculous. I think it is less ridiculous.
There is no such thing as an economy. There cannot be an economy where an economy is defined as "the total value of the goods and services in a society", since this is defined by humans and cannot have an objective definition in this case.
On the BBC or in a newspaper "economy" usually means "the total value of the goods and services in a political state". I assume that's what they mean anyway. Like when they say "the economy grew by 2% this year". Look up "economy" elsewhere and you'll find other definitions. Interesting.
The "total value of the goods and services in a society" is only ever an opinion. In my opinion, I wouldn't give you a carrot for the goods and services contained in..er..wherever... let's say Watford Gap Service Station on the M1. Someone else might say they were worth a fiver. Someone else a tenner. :) Someone else might say two carrots... etc.
Also this assumes we can agree on what constitutes a "good" or a "service" ... Well you may say anything that has a cash value... Well, anything can have a cash value if you pay cash for it....
I work in a second hand bookshop and I recently found a heap of books on economics, including a few dictionaries of economics. I looked up "economy" in the glossary/dictionary of each book and almost every one had a different definition.
The Victorians maybe had it right when they tended to call it "Political Economy" like in "The Importance of Being Earnest".
There cannot really be economic laws. Since at any time humans could act in any way.
Prices and demand are essentially created by humans and can be changed at any time by humans. Humans could refuse to buy or sell anything at all at any time. Hence strictly speaking there can be no economic laws.... Economics is Politics.
-------
The term "society" obviously refers - apart from anything else - to a concept, as does the term "mind"....
The concept of a society is probably a valid concept.
-------
The use of the term "economy" to refer to a "system" is still obviously very vague.
-------------------------
Another point about this is that it is probably impossible to disbelieve in (the existence of ) "society" and yet at the same time to believe in (the existence of) an "economy"; this impossible position would seem to be the position of some on the political right.
If you disbelieve in "society", then surely a fortiori you must disbelieve in an "economy".
?
.....
Economics need radical re-assessment.
Try here for some of it:
www.neweconomics.org
"PIGS" (Economics) Disambiguation!
If "PIGS" is not a racist acronym - and it clearly is! - why wasn't "GIPS" chosen?
Same letters - same racism!.....
One could be forgiven for thinking that -
"Economics is politics and politics is racism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGS_(economics)
...........
Same letters - same racism!.....
One could be forgiven for thinking that -
"Economics is politics and politics is racism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIGS_(economics)
...........
Alexander Rosenberg.
There is at least ONE other Filosofa to be sceptical about "Economics"....
ID EST:) -
Alexander Rosenberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg
ID EST:) -
Alexander Rosenberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg
"Economy"
If you use the word "ECONOMY" as a CONCRETE noun - STOP! and try and think of EXACTLY what you denote by the term!
For most of its existence the word "ECONOMY" was an ABSTRACT noun. Like "bravery", "perseverance" or "panache"....
If you use expressions like "a fairer economy", "at the centre of the economy", "the economy was squeezed", "the economy was boosted"......STOP! and THINK of EXACTLY what you denote by the term "ECONOMY" in those expressions!...
If you think about it you may often see it means very little......
Doing this little exercise may hopefully help you in your thinking about the whole question.....
--------------------
Further homework :) could include thinking of what term one would employ to replace the term "economy" in one's own discourse....
Also very revealing! Suggestions I came up with included "distributive/distribution system" or "profit(-making) system........
Economics and Value.
In a fundamental sense, economics is about wealth and value.
Wealth - apart from simply physical objects - can sometimes mean anything that we value.
We can give value to anything - concepts, people, places and of course things including money.
Money also has value as exchange value.
So in a sense economics could be something like "the scientific study of wealth and value".
It is in this sense philosophy - since what has value - and what we mean by value - is a branch of philosophy.
It is possibly related to Ethics - which is the study of what is a good or valuable life (and conduct).
Ethiconomics?
......
Wealth - apart from simply physical objects - can sometimes mean anything that we value.
We can give value to anything - concepts, people, places and of course things including money.
Money also has value as exchange value.
So in a sense economics could be something like "the scientific study of wealth and value".
It is in this sense philosophy - since what has value - and what we mean by value - is a branch of philosophy.
It is possibly related to Ethics - which is the study of what is a good or valuable life (and conduct).
Ethiconomics?
......
Milton Friedman was not an economist. He was a Propagandist!
Milton Friedman was not an economist. He was a Propagandist!
“Labour Theory of Value”?
Some incomplete ramblings.
“Labour Theory of Value”:
"The proposition that goods have their value by virtue of the labour, or labour power, that has gone into producing them."
?
(Part of) my questioning of this theory (if I understand it correctly) is (ridiculously) simple:
Ultimately the (exchange) value of an item – the only value an item can have in conventional economics is surely exchange value? – is simply what someone pays someone else – who happens to “possess” it – (and “Property is theft” anyway) - for it.
(Property MUST be theft - because LOGICALLY NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS ANYTHING.)
In terms of exchange value, exchange value is simply arbitrary because someone could give the object to someone else for nothing even if they could charge and be paid 10 million pounds for the same object.
Therefore the exchange value of an object is arbitrary.
Someone could refuse to BUY or SELL anything at ANY TIME.
.....
Please tell me what you think of this.....
There are other kinds of VALUE other than exchange value....
En revanche, low wages in the plundered world = massive profits for bussiness + cheap and plentiful (and unneeded) goods for the plundering world.
This may all sound simplistic.
I must say that Marx's theories themselves are also capable of being called simplistic, especially in their totalising tendency with regard, for example, to the LTV and his simplistic insistence that Labour creates all value....
To be continued.....
"Eco-"- "Study of the House". "Management of the House".
An irony is that "Eco - logy" and "Eco - nomics", activities which have come to seem in some ways diammetrically opposed, both etymologically share the same Greek root - "ECO"-"oikos".
They are certainly comprised of very different subject matter when one studies them!.......
Both come from a word meaning "house" - Greek - oikos, "house".
....
One means
"Study of the House" (Ecology)
the other means
"Rules (or customs) of the House" (Economics).
.........
Interestingly enough this makes a rather (poetic) good point -
Studying the house can only really be objective.
Whereas giving rules to the house - or managing the house - cannot really be objective and is really only determined by humans and moreover rules of the house are always........... politics - surely!
Managing the house is an activity as well.....
Economics is politics.
..................
Ecco qua!
They are certainly comprised of very different subject matter when one studies them!.......
Both come from a word meaning "house" - Greek - oikos, "house".
....
One means
"Study of the House" (Ecology)
the other means
"Rules (or customs) of the House" (Economics).
.........
Interestingly enough this makes a rather (poetic) good point -
Studying the house can only really be objective.
Whereas giving rules to the house - or managing the house - cannot really be objective and is really only determined by humans and moreover rules of the house are always........... politics - surely!
Managing the house is an activity as well.....
Economics is politics.
..................
Ecco qua!
The man who came down from the mountain and said......
More from the man who came down from the mountain and said:
"ECONOMICS IS BULLSHIT."
is to be found here:
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2008/05/we-interrupt-this-blog-for-brief-rant.html
There IS scope for a book delineating the fantastical meandering rubbish that has constituted economics.
It would perhaps have to have a slight comedic slant.
---------------------
KICK IT OVER!
https://www.adbusters.org/files/downloads/jpgs/adb_poster_manifesto.jpg
"ECONOMICS IS BULLSHIT."
is to be found here:
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2008/05/we-interrupt-this-blog-for-brief-rant.html
There IS scope for a book delineating the fantastical meandering rubbish that has constituted economics.
It would perhaps have to have a slight comedic slant.
---------------------
KICK IT OVER!
https://www.adbusters.org/files/downloads/jpgs/adb_poster_manifesto.jpg
The Greatest Economist of All Time?....
Who was the greatest economist of all time?.....
J.(o).K.(e) Galbraith?...
John Maynard "Wine Gums" Keynes?....
...................
or is it......
The Stand Up Economist?
--------------
http://www.standupeconomist.com/
---------------------------------
I have a soft spot for Noreena Hertz personally.
Who is also a campaigner for social justice!
www.noreena.com www.noreena.com
She writes with great perspicacity on the contemporary scene....
There are lots of other Economists I'd like to fanfare.....
I will add them later.
Is there such a thing as Feminist economics?....
After all - it has been a male dominated discipline in what was a male-dominated world!......
Only one woman has ever won the Nobel for Economics.
I personally don't think there should be a "Nobel Prize for Economics" at all!
....as I explain here!
......
J.(o).K.(e) Galbraith?...
John Maynard "Wine Gums" Keynes?....
...................
or is it......
The Stand Up Economist?
--------------
http://www.standupeconomist.com/
---------------------------------
I have a soft spot for Noreena Hertz personally.
Who is also a campaigner for social justice!
www.noreena.com www.noreena.com
She writes with great perspicacity on the contemporary scene....
There are lots of other Economists I'd like to fanfare.....
I will add them later.
Is there such a thing as Feminist economics?....
After all - it has been a male dominated discipline in what was a male-dominated world!......
Only one woman has ever won the Nobel for Economics.
I personally don't think there should be a "Nobel Prize for Economics" at all!
....as I explain here!
......
If "Western Civilisation" exists....
If "Western Civilization" exists - and it probably doesn't - then it is in origin Greek.
And what are we doing to Greece at the moment? Destroying it for no reason!
In the name of the pseudo-science of "Economics" - which is a Greek word meaning "Household Management".
-----------------------------------------
There is a series in The Guardian at the moment about the ancient world - also there is a new E.B.C. series about the Greeks.
I wonder if they will ever point out and recognise and accept that what became England was part of the ancient world, in the sense that it was a part of the Graeco-Roman civilisation for a few hundred years whilst that civilisation existed.
We live in hope!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTIMUS SEVERUS (145 CE - 211 CE) - Roman Emperor
- Born LEPTIS MAGNA / Libya, Died EBORACUM / York, England.
I wonder if he ever stopped for a drink in DUROLITUM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talking of Greek.....
the designation- MICROeconomics and MACROeconomics.... is rather odd.....
And what are we doing to Greece at the moment? Destroying it for no reason!
In the name of the pseudo-science of "Economics" - which is a Greek word meaning "Household Management".
-----------------------------------------
There is a series in The Guardian at the moment about the ancient world - also there is a new E.B.C. series about the Greeks.
I wonder if they will ever point out and recognise and accept that what became England was part of the ancient world, in the sense that it was a part of the Graeco-Roman civilisation for a few hundred years whilst that civilisation existed.
We live in hope!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTIMUS SEVERUS (145 CE - 211 CE) - Roman Emperor
- Born LEPTIS MAGNA / Libya, Died EBORACUM / York, England.
I wonder if he ever stopped for a drink in DUROLITUM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talking of Greek.....
the designation- MICROeconomics and MACROeconomics.... is rather odd.....
Wikidefinition of "An Economy"
I see they have changed the definition of an "economy" on wikipedia!
Very interesting.
Here is the new wikidefinition:
"An economy is the ways in which people use their environment to meet their material needs."
I feel quite vindicated by this change in definition.
I feel vindicated because if you really think about this definition you will realise there is no such thing as "an economy."
Even if this definition were accepted it can plainly be seen from it that economics is politics - id est "the ways in which people use the environment to meet their needs" is surely determined entirely by politics.
Tell me if I am wrong.
Very interesting.
Here is the new wikidefinition:
"An economy is the ways in which people use their environment to meet their material needs."
I feel quite vindicated by this change in definition.
I feel vindicated because if you really think about this definition you will realise there is no such thing as "an economy."
Even if this definition were accepted it can plainly be seen from it that economics is politics - id est "the ways in which people use the environment to meet their needs" is surely determined entirely by politics.
Tell me if I am wrong.
"Economics is bullshit"
I just googled "Economics is bullshit" and found this.
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2008/06/economics-is-bullshit-cont.html
Interesting.
-----
Interesting research technique as well.
If you think "xyz" then just google it - in inverted commas of course - and see what you get ! :)
-----
BTW Economics IS bullshit.......
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2008/06/economics-is-bullshit-cont.html
Interesting.
-----
Interesting research technique as well.
If you think "xyz" then just google it - in inverted commas of course - and see what you get ! :)
-----
BTW Economics IS bullshit.......
"The British Museum" on Greek "Household Management"!
"The Greeks "did" economics, practically speaking, but they did not theorise it as we do."
[Source - "The Ancient World: Greece: Day 2" Second Booklet in Grauniad series about Ancient World - provided by "Brutish Museum."]
( NOTA BENE : The FACT that "Economics" is a Greek word is not acknowledged!! )
THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS SO OBVIOUSLY THE CASE. :)
That is to say - the Greeks theorized "Economics" (including giving it is name) - and did NOT "practically DO" "Economics" as we do - mainly because it does not exist. :)
.................
:)
The Ancient Greeks were ahead of us in so many ways. As are the modern Greeks.
.................
[Source - "The Ancient World: Greece: Day 2" Second Booklet in Grauniad series about Ancient World - provided by "Brutish Museum."]
( NOTA BENE : The FACT that "Economics" is a Greek word is not acknowledged!! )
THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS SO OBVIOUSLY THE CASE. :)
That is to say - the Greeks theorized "Economics" (including giving it is name) - and did NOT "practically DO" "Economics" as we do - mainly because it does not exist. :)
.................
:)
The Ancient Greeks were ahead of us in so many ways. As are the modern Greeks.
.................
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be."
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be." Shakespeare.
What's the bigger crime, robbing a bank or opening one?
"What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?"
Berthold Brecht.
----
So I think I've figured this thing out.
They are lending out lots and lots of money that they don't have
to people that can't pay it back.
Banks are needed to loan out money to people. Maybe.
But it needs a bit of regulation surely.
What's the bigger crime, robbing a bank or opening one?
"What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?"
Berthold Brecht.
----
So I think I've figured this thing out.
They are lending out lots and lots of money that they don't have
to people that can't pay it back.
Banks are needed to loan out money to people. Maybe.
But it needs a bit of regulation surely.
Eco-Gnome-Ics!......
Maybe "Economics" is REALLY about Gnomes --- ECO-GNOME-ICS!!! :) You may scoff!!!
But have you ever seen ANYONE more like a Gnome than the Governor of the Bank of England - Sir Mervyn King??
And - what's more - he is also a MAGICAL BEING who can INVENT money!!! I wish I could!!! :)
Chief Gnome "MERVYN KING" leads the way:
But have you ever seen ANYONE more like a Gnome than the Governor of the Bank of England - Sir Mervyn King??
And - what's more - he is also a MAGICAL BEING who can INVENT money!!! I wish I could!!! :)
Chief Gnome "MERVYN KING" leads the way:
I have a lot of sympathy for "The Economy"......
At the moment I feel a great deal of sympathy for "The Economy" and am taking it easy.
For Ruth Lea
http://kickitover.org/
For Ruth Lea
with love from
The Sofa.
:)
---------------
To be honest even adbusters don't go far enough in the sense that even they talk about "economies" and "economic growth."
Not only do I not believe these things are important - I simply believe that they mean NOTHING WHATSOVER, DO NOT EXIST and/or simply CANNOT be defined.
I repeat. It is not only that I think valuing these things ("economies" and "economic growth") is immoral and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - which I do - it is ALSO that I simply believe - and I believe this with great confidence - that they have no meaning in ANY scientific sense.
I ardently urge people to prove me wrong. :)
For Ruth Lea
with love from
The Sofa.
:)
---------------
To be honest even adbusters don't go far enough in the sense that even they talk about "economies" and "economic growth."
Not only do I not believe these things are important - I simply believe that they mean NOTHING WHATSOVER, DO NOT EXIST and/or simply CANNOT be defined.
I repeat. It is not only that I think valuing these things ("economies" and "economic growth") is immoral and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - which I do - it is ALSO that I simply believe - and I believe this with great confidence - that they have no meaning in ANY scientific sense.
I ardently urge people to prove me wrong. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)