In capitalism, economics has been exalted out of its subcategory under ethics in the field of philosophy, to an unwarranted sole and separate discipline. Adam Smith, the grandaddy of economists, was a moral philosopher.
To tart economics up to play the role of a school of study, definitions were necessarily, ahem, enhanced. Terms such as profit, money, currency, credit, entrepreneur, all have multiple and contradictory definitions depending on who is talking. If is cacophony when economists meet.
Outsiders are perplexed by what it all means, and explanations go right past interested observers. Even people who know exactly what they are talking about are unable to communicate what is going on to most people, for most people don't know what the speaker in a given instance means by, say, money.
Two examples:
1. Lacy Hunt is brilliant, and Mish reviews his latest report here. Both Mish and Hunt know what they are talking about, but that word "money" is so sloppy that unless you are replacing the wrong use of the word money with the term they mean, their point is inscrutable.
And by the way, when this economy comes down, no one can say they did not see it coming. Your paycheck, pension and property are all forfeit in the coming disaster. Your only hope is self-employment.
2. Even the Austrians redefined money to make it closer to reality, but money is strictly gold or silver (almost always) otherwise is is tallies represented who owes whom what.
Aristotle said something about "first, define your terms." A field of study in which the vocabulary means nothing is the playground of scam artists.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
To tart economics up to play the role of a school of study, definitions were necessarily, ahem, enhanced. Terms such as profit, money, currency, credit, entrepreneur, all have multiple and contradictory definitions depending on who is talking. If is cacophony when economists meet.
Outsiders are perplexed by what it all means, and explanations go right past interested observers. Even people who know exactly what they are talking about are unable to communicate what is going on to most people, for most people don't know what the speaker in a given instance means by, say, money.
Two examples:
1. Lacy Hunt is brilliant, and Mish reviews his latest report here. Both Mish and Hunt know what they are talking about, but that word "money" is so sloppy that unless you are replacing the wrong use of the word money with the term they mean, their point is inscrutable.
And by the way, when this economy comes down, no one can say they did not see it coming. Your paycheck, pension and property are all forfeit in the coming disaster. Your only hope is self-employment.
2. Even the Austrians redefined money to make it closer to reality, but money is strictly gold or silver (almost always) otherwise is is tallies represented who owes whom what.
Aristotle said something about "first, define your terms." A field of study in which the vocabulary means nothing is the playground of scam artists.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment