From: "Jimmy" <blue0ne2000@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:19:44 -0400
Actually, that would be only one application of it.
For instance... the study of home economics is to increase the quality of life for all who dwell in the home, whereas the study of corporate economicsis how to increase your market share by cutting into others market share... thereby attempting to annhialte competitors within the degree of declared monopoly.
2 different aims of economics.
HATTORI nobuo <hattorin@ta2.so-net.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:hattorin-1310011150400001@p8027b7.fnbspc00.ap.so-net.ne.jp...
> Adam Smith said that the definition of economics is the wealth of
> nations,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mason Clark <masonc@ix.netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:59:03 -0700
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:50:40 +0900, hattorin@ta2.so-net.ne.jp (HATTORI nobuo) wrote:
> I believe that the study of raising the bottom by putting these together is economics.
Amen. Right on. Correct. Which reminds me to update my signature:
---------------------------------------------------
Posted on this day of the Ninety-nine Year War
---------------------------------------------------
Civilized economic theory is concerned with thecondition of the bottom ten percent. The rest cantake care of themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------From: hystock@home.com (Hyman Blumenstock)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
Date: 13 Oct 2001 07:17:30 -0700
Mason Clark <masonc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<oilfsts690r53ndmtg35ge96af4c4p7b8a@4ax.com>...
> Amen. Right on. Correct. Which reminds me to update my signature:
>
Every last problem of the 20th century, the human misery, crime,violence, war, slaughter, depredation of the environment, can be laiddirectly upon the doorstep of Doctrinaire Economics. Their selfimposed function during the Agrarian era of food scarcity was thenegative one of determining who shall NOT be permitted to share in the then scarce food supply, via the means of marketplace, barter, and
then the fiction of money to act as a "ticket of access" to the scarce food supply. The purpose -- to assure that those deemed most entitled to eat would not have to worry about depleting the food supply feeding those deemed least entitled.
When food became abundant (circa 1888) the Doctrinaire Economic profession, upset that their function of determining who shall not eat would become moot, immediately initiated food destruction and subsidies not to produce food. Failing at restoring food scarcity, they cleverly shifted our natural obesssion with food into an unnatural obsession with the fiction of money, and since then has kept that in as scarce supply as food had been, and thereby maintain the
Have, Have-Not dichotomy upon which the Economist thrives. His function then of denying access to those deemed least entitled could be maintained instead of that sick, appropriately called 'dismal profession' becoming, as it should, moot and relegated to the history books. Therein lies the reason for the ever escalating hostilities ofthe hungry versus the now overfed.
HB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID: <3BC89FDD.B98E07FA@netacc.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:11:10 -0400
From: Robert Simon <simon@netacc.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
To: Hyman Blumenstock <hystock@home.com>
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> Every last problem of the 20th century, the human misery, crime, violence, war, slaughter, depredation of
its a travesty that Mr. Blumenstock didn't get this years Nobel Prize for Economics. He has practically solehandedly invented the field of Conspiratorial Economics. But why was he not recognized?
Could it be that the world has not yet achieved the necessary technical proficiency to digest his advanced theorizing.
Or is it possible that his utter lack of historical evidence undercuts the legitimacy of his theories.
OR...can it be that the "Doctrainaire Economics" cabal recognizes the threat Mr. Blumenstock poses to their orthodoxy.....and is thus doing their utmost to delegitimize his views.
Galilieo too was mocked in his own time but now is known as a brilliant theorist. Ah the torture of being a true intellectual pioneer.
PS I am impressed by Dick Eastman's paranoid rantings too.
ROB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Day Brown <daybrown@cei.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,x-ns162xt0VKaNh5,x-ns2U0e0btwUq5f
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
References: <hattorin-1310011150400001@p8027b7.fnbspc00.ap.so-net.ne.jp>
>What is social progress? I believe it is to raise the bottom.
> For that purpose, it should be clearly defined that Economics is the stu
> dy to eradicate poverty from earth.
Noble sentiment.
Under Communism, the government owns all the business, and the guy who runs the factory rides home in a limo to a trophy wife.
Under Capitalism, the business owns all the government, and the guy who runs the factory rides home in a limo to a trophy wife.
When have we seen it otherwise? It has been a while. The Minoans, the Cucuteni, the Sarmatians, the Tocharians, and a few others. What they all had in common was that the entire power structure was run by women. All the words relating to authority or resources which we have in Proto-Indo-European are feminine forms.
They did not have kings, so they did not build monuments or palaces for them. Even the palace at Knossus is not a palace, but an administrative center with many small apartments. whether the graveyard is at Urumchi or Varna, what we see are people who show no evidence of deprivation or abuse, and the grave goods are relatively egalitarian, no lavish tombs for kings.
Whereas the patriarchic cultures all show palaces surrounded by the huts of the poor, the Minoan city of Thera is like the Cucuteni tels, large communal houses with no evidence of slums at all, much less a caste system.
It is the difference between the Bonobo and the Chimpanzee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------From: hystock@home.com (Hyman Blumenstock)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
Date: 13 Oct 2001 21:00:59 -0700
Robert Simon <simon@netacc.net> wrote in message news:<3BC89FDD.B98E07FA@netacc.net>...
> Hyman Blumenstock wrote:
> > Every last problem of the 20th century, the human misery, crime, violence, war, slaughter, depredation of
My "advanced theorizing" is no more than a new born baby knows about economics, and that's all there is pragmatically. "Feel a hunger pang, do something about it, and being fed, know peace and contentment insofar as one's Security is concerned." Self Esteem is a totally different subject, that the Economic profession touches not at all, but it is also a part and parcel of Motivation that moves people to dothings.
Without full Security deliberately curtailed and without Self
Esteem involved, what is done are usually antisocial things.
>
> Or is it possible that his utter lack of historical evidence undercuts the legitimacy of his theories.
Like the utter lack of evidence of putting a man on the moon in all of ancient history undercuts the legitimacy of the theory of putting a man on the moon. Pull your head out and smell the fresh air.
>
> OR...can it be that the "Doctrainaire Economics" cabal recognizes the threat Mr. Blumenstock poses to their
> orthodoxy.....and is thus doing their utmost to delegitimize his views.
Exactly. Imagine professors with PhDs failing to come up with logical rebuttals to what they are supposed to be expert in, and instead resorting to foul epithets attacking the messenger before running off in dismay shouting in effect, "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up." For they have a lot to unlearn to become useful citizens again with a legitimate goal. A blow to their prestigious positions and ego. Of course, not one iota of living a good life need be forfeited if they were to suddenly accept the truth.
>
> Galilieo too was mocked in his own time but now is known as a brilliant theorist. Ah the torture of being a
> true intellectual pioneer.
Could you ever become one, with your mind so overladen with Economic
BS?
>
> PS I am impressed by Dick Eastman's paranoid rantings too.
Again, attacking the messenger, proves only your dismay at being found out to be an ignoramus instead of the scholar you imagined you were.
HB
> ROB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tcw@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: The definition of economics
Date: 14 Oct 2001 05:24:40 -0700
> >What is social progress? I believe it is to raise the bottom.
Economics and social progress are not the same thing at all.
>
> > For that purpose, it should be clearly defined that Economics is the stu
> > dy to eradicate poverty from earth.
The bottom has risen over the last couple of centuries....measured by anything real like child mortality, life spans etc. So therefore economics must be doing a pretty good job ?
There is a reasonable definition of economics which has nothing to do with social progress, capitalism, marxism nor the patriarchal \ matriarchal divide that one writer tried to introduce.
Firstly one should realise that economics is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't attempt to tell people what to do, just describes what they already do do. In mushc the same way that a primate anthropologist might distinguish between chimpanzees and bonobos.
Secondly, it is a science, a social science to be sure, but a science all the same.
Thirdly, think about what it is that it is trying to describe....how human beings react to a certain set of stimuli.
So the real definition of economics can be boiled down to ' we have noticed that humans do these things under these circumstances.'
There, that wasn't very tough, was it ?
As for the idea that money and trade are a method of restricting access to food during the Agrarian times.....have you ever actually though about what you are saying ?
Hunter Gatherer societies don't have trade or money.....everyone is too busy getting today's food. Only with the introduction of agriculture, and the concomitant food SURPLUS is it possible for people to do anything except hunt and \ or gather. So only after agriculture can you have specialisation, and thus trade and a market.
So I think you've got your observation precisely 180 degrees the wrong way round. Trade, money and markets came about as a result of allocating the food surplus between the various specialists that that surplus allowed to exist. And this happened some thousands of years before 1880, like 7,000 or 8,000 BC.
Matriarchal or patriarchal societies ? Fine, doesn't bother either me or economics. The economist is only trying to describe what happens, not what should happen.
Tim Worstall
>
> Noble sentiment.
> Under Communism, the government owns all the business, and the guy
> who runs the factory rides home in a limo to a trophy wife.
>