Would it be of any use to anybody, I wonder, to have a
better understanding of economics? Do we need that? I am not saying that I can change the world and I am not saying that I want to do that. My mission is to tell you you were taught stuff in college
economics that is wrong. That stuff isn’t true. It's not easy to tell this to people. I can add that — OK — it’s a nice story. If it wasn't a nice story, no one would buy it. Yes, but it cannot any longer seem so 'nice' when you realize what has
happened. You are deliberately being given wrong information. It's a troubling situation, and serious problem.
Then it does not seem so innocent and 'nice.' We are unable to explain the economic basis of the society we live in. This is a matter that concerns me, is of concern to me. It concerns me that we have only the basic, common sense notions about economics. The problem, and it is a deep problem, is that no one is able to get past that, or to develop the deep theories that one would expect to see, in other areas of scholarly inquiry. There has been this failure to explain economic life in a disciplined, formal manner. And they are telling us, with a straight face, that the existing "science" is good. This is what's troubling. You have not only "pretty bad science," but a propaganda effort to say it isn't. And here we get back to the earlier question. Why is it so hard to create a genuine economics?
In short, why tell people the wrong things? This is something we really need to understand. Is it an honest mistake? This is a big question but in any case the pretend explanations are out there, doing their thing. Now, all these are centered in a particular school, that arose starting around 1880. That school is the “neo-Classical” school. Creative work in this school peaked, I would say, around 1920. OK, maybe not. Maybe you could say it peaked in the 1930s or at some other time; but, what is it still doing being around at all? Did it turn out to be the truth? No! So, you would think it would have very effectively choked itself to death some time ago. It should fall, based on its being wrong. Well, why doesn't it? That's the question. And, for neo-Classical economics to still be there has to be malicious. It doesn't just hang around for no reason. In the past, every so often, I have checked. And, what I would find out, every time I check, is that it is still out there, being taught. (I am always amazed to see that this is the case. I have not checked under any rocks for a while, though. Maybe it just got to be too boring. However, it is also true that many professors are questioning it, now. Currently, this is true. That's great. What took you so long, baby? It sure took them a long time, to get there. My, that is strange.)
Then it does not seem so innocent and 'nice.' We are unable to explain the economic basis of the society we live in. This is a matter that concerns me, is of concern to me. It concerns me that we have only the basic, common sense notions about economics. The problem, and it is a deep problem, is that no one is able to get past that, or to develop the deep theories that one would expect to see, in other areas of scholarly inquiry. There has been this failure to explain economic life in a disciplined, formal manner. And they are telling us, with a straight face, that the existing "science" is good. This is what's troubling. You have not only "pretty bad science," but a propaganda effort to say it isn't. And here we get back to the earlier question. Why is it so hard to create a genuine economics?
In short, why tell people the wrong things? This is something we really need to understand. Is it an honest mistake? This is a big question but in any case the pretend explanations are out there, doing their thing. Now, all these are centered in a particular school, that arose starting around 1880. That school is the “neo-Classical” school. Creative work in this school peaked, I would say, around 1920. OK, maybe not. Maybe you could say it peaked in the 1930s or at some other time; but, what is it still doing being around at all? Did it turn out to be the truth? No! So, you would think it would have very effectively choked itself to death some time ago. It should fall, based on its being wrong. Well, why doesn't it? That's the question. And, for neo-Classical economics to still be there has to be malicious. It doesn't just hang around for no reason. In the past, every so often, I have checked. And, what I would find out, every time I check, is that it is still out there, being taught. (I am always amazed to see that this is the case. I have not checked under any rocks for a while, though. Maybe it just got to be too boring. However, it is also true that many professors are questioning it, now. Currently, this is true. That's great. What took you so long, baby? It sure took them a long time, to get there. My, that is strange.)
The Classical theory is much preferable. Let's see how the Classical theory looks, written out. I encountered the
following explanation. This was from a Wikipedia page: “neo-Classical
Economics.”
Classical economics, developed in the 18th and
19th centuries, included a value theory and distribution theory. The value of a
product was thought to depend on the costs involved in producing that product.
The explanation of costs in Classical economics was simultaneously an
explanation of distribution. A landlord received rent, workers received wages,
and a capitalist tenant farmer received profits on their investment.
This sounds to me better than the “other” approach. Anything would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment