by Summary:
Economics remains pre-scientific because, while Planck said "science advances one funeral at a time", for economics, funerals alone aren't enough.
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Economics remains pre-scientific because, while Planck said "science advances one funeral at a time", for economics, funerals alone aren't enough.
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Bill Haskell writes From the Middle Out and Bottom Up
Joel Eissenberg writes The business model of modern universities
Bill Haskell writes The Economics of Killing Medicaid . . .
Angry Bear writes Healthcare in the United States
| Economics remains pre-scientific because, while Planck said "science advances one funeral at a time", for economics, funerals alone aren't enough. |
Prof Keen, as someone who only recieved a basic UK education/Indoctrination in the 80s, I would just like to thank you again for all you have tryd to to, your good self and Max keiser are 2people who have effected my life the most and have given me the best advice for free. As it was to all who were willing to listen, I jumped into the housing market in December 2008 and mortgage free from December 2022 .None of my friends believe me when I tell them about how the gov could have given us all man women child £7000 each year approx since 2008 to spend into the economy, and we would all have been in a better place now, trickle down didnt trickle very far … is that still correct ? … much respect Sir thank you🖖🖖👍.
Many thanks Shaun. Since I get attacked so much from so many sides, it's very good for my soul to get affirmations like yours.
@ProfSteveKeen Interesting, I would have thought you had terrific feedback for innovative thinking like universal carbon credits!
Excellent commentary as always. The point about economic thinking needing to rely on a new theory of value is one I have had on my mind for a while too. An interpretation of mine is that in any hypothetical context, value is an expression from any defined thing onto such context. The defined thing in the case of some new economics would be an individual, and the expression of value is giving of currency or trust in regards to the context of "an exchange of goods and services". The individual hands over the equivalent amount of "social trust" as deemed by the context, which also involves the conditions leading to the creation of the good or service and what the rest of society values this process to be worth. This value is in return set by what the market-makers (which would ideally be democratized to include every stakeholders) believe to be the best approximation for the value of each of the resources (material or abstract) were worth to themselves relative to hypothetical consumers. The individual has the free choice of what to spend their social trust form of currency on which acts as "the demand" in discrete terms. Both parties act as the thesis and antithesis of each other in turn, to get a synthesis of the best middle ground. The problem comes when those who set the value do not represent the interests of all people (only all people themselves can), market-makers which we can refer to as capitalists or oligarchs make up baseless reasons for changing the worth of currencies with the help of economic "scientists" and force politics to align. Hopefully this changes sooner rather than later.
Part of the difficulty of advancing economic thought is influence of political philosophy, and plutocrat lobbying
Additionally, Economics faces irrational personality traits which are rationalized into proposals which fit those traits. In this case those who continue to want smaller government, a society dominated by free market capitalism – are the type of people who hate constraints on their personal freedom – they press hard for deregulation, free trade; they fight climate change measures, they fight the welfare state, they fight covid mitigation efforts and mandates, … their emotions overcome logic and evidence!