Economics is Politics:
Notes Towards A Questioning of "Economics".
*) "Economics" is politics. (Marxists very generally say something like "Politics is Economics"......).....
Notes Towards A Questioning of "Economics".
*) "Economics" is politics. (Marxists very generally say something like "Politics is Economics"......).....
*) There are humans and the environment. What happens between them is entirely determined by humans, the only possible agents.
*) Where resources are is Geografy ; what is done with them is Politics! :)
*) Where resources are is Geografy ; what is done with them is Politics! :)
*) "Economics" is not a subject and certainly not a (social) science.
*) "Economics" previously simply meant "household management" and did so until within the last few centuries...... ID EST - The shopping list and the bills. And nothing more. ID EST - doing the sums!
The first recorded use of the word "economy" seems to have been in a medieval monastery!:)
The first recorded use of the word "economy" seems to have been in a medieval monastery!:)
*) ALL prices MUST be created and determined (ultimately) by humans. They indeed were far more directly and obviously for much of history.
Governments directly determined prices of many many commodities for long periods of history all around the world.....
*) Until the beginning of the 20th c. what we call "Economics" was usually called "Political Economy." (This expression - "Political Economy" seems to have possibly been coined or reinforced by the notorious Ricardo of London - another diffident candidate as a "founding father" of this pseudo-science....)....
*) "Adam Smith was the very model of an economist". This statement would be DENOUNCED by a defender of Smith.
*) Adam Smith was first and foremost a (Scots) (Enlightenment) (Moral) PHILOSOPHER.
He was not necessarily the "founding father" of "economics".
"Wealth of Nations" is exactly what it says it is - an attempt to explain why countries become wealthy.
("Wealthy" in this case means physical wealth as much as financial wealth - as at this time people were more normal and knew what the word actually meant!)
It is not a "founding text" of "economics."
Governments directly determined prices of many many commodities for long periods of history all around the world.....
*) Until the beginning of the 20th c. what we call "Economics" was usually called "Political Economy." (This expression - "Political Economy" seems to have possibly been coined or reinforced by the notorious Ricardo of London - another diffident candidate as a "founding father" of this pseudo-science....)....
*) "Adam Smith was the very model of an economist". This statement would be DENOUNCED by a defender of Smith.
*) Adam Smith was first and foremost a (Scots) (Enlightenment) (Moral) PHILOSOPHER.
He was not necessarily the "founding father" of "economics".
"Wealth of Nations" is exactly what it says it is - an attempt to explain why countries become wealthy.
("Wealthy" in this case means physical wealth as much as financial wealth - as at this time people were more normal and knew what the word actually meant!)
It is not a "founding text" of "economics."
*) There is no "invisible hand" - or if there is the "invisible" hand must always be a HUMAN hand. I will add that the man himself - living in a much more religious era - would have of course had the Almighty or "Divine Providence" in mind as a possible owner of the hand in question. He was more of a Deist perhaps.
*) "The Labour Theory of Value" - seemingly confected by the same Ricardo - is an utterly meaningless conceit having no correspondence to reality. The same could maybe said of other "economic laws" and theories.
*) "It may well be that a wholly acceptable definition does not exist."
In entry under "ECONOMICS" in "The Penguin Dictionary of Economics." 1972.
*) "It may well be that a wholly acceptable definition does not exist."
In entry under "ECONOMICS" in "The Penguin Dictionary of Economics." 1972.
*) "Economics"'s status as a subject or a science is questionable.
*) For most of its existence the term "Economy" was an ABSTRACT rather than a CONCRETE noun.
...... For me its new meaning as a concrete noun is very questionable - where it means "the total value of wealth and/or means of creating wealth in a society" etc..... ....
*) For most of its existence the term "Economy" was an ABSTRACT rather than a CONCRETE noun.
...... For me its new meaning as a concrete noun is very questionable - where it means "the total value of wealth and/or means of creating wealth in a society" etc..... ....
*) Humans are not necessarily "totally rational" agents. Human behaviour is investigated by psychology. Humans are free agents and can act freely at any time.
*) Since all activity between the enviroment and humans is entirely determined by humans; and humans can act in any way at any time; it is difficult to see how there can be "economic laws" as such....
*) "Work" does not and cannot in and of itself create "wealth" or "value".......
*) "Value" is a problematic concept; perhaps the only kind of value is "exchange value".....
*) "Unemployment" is a recent and meaningless concept; it is also ethnocentric as a concept in some ways; it is a concept that needs questioning; as does the concept of "jobs".....
*) The intellectual origins and uses of the subject of "Economics" in the 20th century are problematic and need researching and analysing.
*) The effects of the worldview and philosophy inherent in the conventional practice of the subject in the 20th century are also worthy of research.
*) Not only is "wealth" not created by "work" - it is not necessarily created at all; neither is it solely "created" by the so-called "private sector" or the "market".....
*) The distinction between "public" and "private" is a deceptive and misleading distinction....
For example in England organisations like Tescos may as well in a sense be "public" sector, such is their dominance....
*) ANY debt can be written off
*) There are no "markets" in the sense of "abstract exchange mechanisms".
There are markets like Romford, Petticoat Lane, Chelmsford Town Market and Dagenham Sunday Market.
There are also more posh permanent covered Antiques Markets in Islington, Spitalfields and Camden. :) ..........
*) Let's finally nail this myth: that "government income" is generated wholly or mainly by the individual "hard-working income tax payer"! BS! ..........
*) "Money" is in no way a necessity for human existence. It would be entirely possible for human society to exist without "money".
*) "Money" is in no way a necessity for human existence. It would be entirely possible for human society to exist without "money".
*) "Economics: The Science of Lies" would be the title of the most relevant "Economics" book to be written.
Hurry up and wurite it!
( Is the Emperor wearing no clothes?... I bet the Emperor is secretly massively in debt as well!... :D )
==============================
ABOLISH THE "Nobel Prize for "Economics"" -
AND RESCIND EVERY AWARDED PRIZE!
Hurry up and wurite it!
( Is the Emperor wearing no clothes?... I bet the Emperor is secretly massively in debt as well!... :D )
==============================
ABOLISH THE "Nobel Prize for "Economics"" -
AND RESCIND EVERY AWARDED PRIZE!
==================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW I am well aware that were Amartya Sen or the "New Economics Foundation" or many others to read the "grand revelations" of the above notes they would probably say something along the lines of:
"Now tell us something we don't already know.
These notes constitute quite a fundamentalist rendering of a sceptical view. It is meant to make people think as much as to try to be entirely correct.
Now please try and argue with these points and argue from them, whether agreeing or not.....
=========
Now please try and argue with these points and argue from them, whether agreeing or not.....
=========