“Economic interactions in civil society, as we use the term here, have in common that relationships are personal and enduring. As a result, identity and other-regarding preferences (for better or worse) are important motives. In civil society, the primary mechanisms guiding economic interactions are neither governmental regulations nor complete contracts and market-determined prices, but are instead hierarchies of private authority and power, social norms, group identity (including out-group hostility), and reputation.” -Labert Strether
ec·o·nom·ics
/ˌekəˈnämiks,ˌēkəˈnämiks/
- The study of how a society organizes it’s money, trade, industry
- The way in which money influences, or is organized with an area of society or business.
Oxford Dictionary gives lists the above definition of economics as a concept. If we were to talk about looking at something from a 500ft view, than this description would be like looking at the idea from space.
I actually think that this definition is _fair_.
This term can be observable as an “object” and using this definition, we could list its properties and describe it as:
- The allocation of resources.
- Why and how they are obtained, catalogued, stored, and assigned.
- Causal and non-causal, downstream and upstream effect resulting from the creation, development, maturation, and destruction of allocation systems.
- Active and passive forces at work within those systems and subsystems.
- The integration model of resources allocation systems with each other.
- The “action” inherent to allocation as a basis for society and business
All of that can be unpacked from a simple Oxford definition. Pretty cool. It’s a great example of the late stages of emergence. A near infinite number of components layered and interlaced together make up this metaphorical “object”, which when observed from this altitude would appear as entropy.
Here is an excellent example from Milton Friedman called “I, Pencil”.
But, have we lost our way?
Note: This idea is not original and is the basis of “Economics as Religion by Robert Nelson” (on my reading list). Once I have completed reading this book, I will likely have new ideas to include here.
In a word, I would say no. But.. Something is surely off.
While many of the principles in modern economic theory make sense from a physical and philosophical perspective when tracing, plotting, and predicting human behavior, there appear to be too many variables to encapsulate in models that “just work all the time.” It’s hard then, to neatly classify the tenants of Economics as “hard science”. I have no other alternative to offer here, however. The roots of Economics are certainly stemmed from “hard science” such as mathematics and physics, but as a “social science” takes on a flavor closer to a religious practice rather than a scientific one.
Have you ever had an social argument with an Economist? I have. Sometimes even, I am the “economist”(lower case) that someone is arguing with. You may find that you have nary a snowballs chance in hell of changing their views on any social issue if they are referencing a social/economic model of some kind (guilty).
The problem here is that an Economist takes on some sort of “Keeper of communal material wellfare” role, or in another word.. a priest of the Church of Economics.
An Economist applies their holy craft in a much broader stroke than other scientific practitioners. With their models and theorems, they claim mastery over the environment, justice, wealth distribution, government, moral integrity, discrimination, and most importantly to any good religion; the balance of power.
There is a difference, however, between a mathematical model that is non-fungible and can be tested, and a value judgement. This is important because implicit value judgements are most often deployed by Economists and are rarely questioned in the same way that a “hard science” theory or model would be.
This idea can be best portrayed in an observation of government. Economists are relied upon in statecraft like great holy advisors and within that role, wield great power. Has any government in the history of man regardless of political affiliation every stymied a financial crisis? How about equitably found a way to distribute wealth? On that topic, has there been a nation without the poor? How about wrangled business or “economic” cycles?
But still, one does not question the right hand of the king; the undisputed word of their holiness, the arch priest of economics.
Devices of will
I would consider it -true- that humans are ultimately driven by material self interest. Perhaps not always as a primary driver of belief and behavior, but almost never is it further down the list than 3rd.
An example then perhaps: I don’t like graffiti.
That’s a simple enough statement, but why do I not like graffiti? I like color, and words, and art. So why is it that when its put together in a public place it bothers me, regardless of how “well done” it is? Is it because it cheapens the area? Is it because it represents a lack of value or respect for the belongings of others? It’s not my thing that was vandalized.
This pattern of thinking can go on and on. While this example is somewhat of a “gimmie”, it still represents that the initial idea of “I dont like graffiti”, is stemmed in an economic bias. This particular art in the wrong particular place lowers my inherent and objective value of that place, for no other reason than the connotation that the person or persons creating these works are lower “class” and “status” than I have assumed myself to be. Pretty gross to think about. I am not harmed, but the action of some other has some buried affect on my experience of that place in space and time. I am affected only because I have assigned some value to a though or feeling of class and status.
And so, I am not free.
It’s personal
“Why I was young, all I thought about was art and music. Now I’m 36, and all I think about is money.. - My Dinner with Andre
