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prize for "Economics" ("The Nobel Prize for Household Management") - the most recently instituted in 1969 - should be rescinded since there is no discipline nor science to award the Prize for.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prize for "Economics" ("The Nobel Prize for Household Management") - the most recently instituted in 1969 - should be rescinded since there is no discipline nor science to award the Prize for.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!......
....
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)