Economics and Philosophy

[piasharn]

When it comes to the economic aspect of politics, I try to keep my mouth shut. (Emphasis on 'try'.) This is for the simple reason that I know very little about the subject, and I feel my time and energy can be more useful when applied to civil rights and other areas in which I am more knowledgeable.

I'd like to learn more about it, though, so I've been trying to do some reading. (It's slow going, though, since I find the whole topic quite dry and boring.) I've been focusing on the U.S. economy within my lifetime as a starting point, and I'm planning on branching out once I get a handle on things.

Except that so much of economics seems to be a matter of opinion...

Some say that the surplus in the 90s was the result of Clinton's policies. Others that it was really Reagan and Bush (Sr.) that got the ball rolling, it just took a while to produce results. The same thing with the current deficit... It's Bush (Jr.)'s fault. It's Clinton's fault.

Yeesh.

I'm suddenly reminded of a concept I read about in philosophy. (Although you'll have to forgive me for forgetting who originally wrote about the idea.) Basically, it says that cause and effect do not exist. What we percieve as cause and effect are in reality random events that our mind links together.

At the time, I didn't think much of it. Now, I'm starting to wonder if that philosopher was on to something...

Comments

[travellyr.livejournal.com]

Pia, lovely?
Econ is a LOT easier if you start back in history and work forward. ESPECIALLY in America, where nearly ALL the laws on anything to do with econ are the results of past court cases.
Like the Sherman Antitrust laws. Congress intentionally passed extremely vague laws on the subject, and left it up to the courts to define what was and was not legal.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

*blinks*

Well, that might explain why I feel like ripping my hair out... ^^;;; Methinks I'll take your advice. Perhaps then I'll start understanding some of this stuff.

[slutbamwalla.livejournal.com]

Except that so much of economics seems to be a matter of opinion...

And that opinion tends to be based on two things:

a) how much money you have, and
b) how you voted in the last election.

My Econ teacher told us the first day to think of the economy as a gameboard and the various institutions as players. He taught his class in that context, and it really helped me understand things better than I otherwise would have. For instance, he explained that the game, as written, has very specific rules (do *this* to influence *that*), but every administration that comes in plays with various "house rules" that take precedence.

It's confusing as hell, no doubt about it.

As for your philosopher quote... I tend to believe the exact opposite -- that is, that even two seemingly random events are related if you trace back far enough. That's the essence of chaos theory; that in a complex system, everything is affected in some way by everything else. The classic example is that the butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo can "cause" a rainstorm in New York. Economics feels like that sometimes. A certain change in interest rates at a certain time can "cause" a recession, for instance. (In both cases, "cause" really means "sets into motion a chain of events that ultimately causes.")

Eww. Rambled a bit too much there. Sorry. >_

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

I'll definately keep that concept in mind. Especially if I end up taking an economics class next semester like I've been thinking about. Thanks for the tidbit!

And I'm more of a fan of chaos theory myself. I just threw in the reference to the other idea for fun. ^_-

[eveningdreams.livejournal.com]

It's really hard for you to get to know me when I really only have one entry, I know. (Maybe two by the time you read this) But I was caught by your info page and couldn't resist. I don't normally do this, so I'm not quite sure how to go about making new livejournal friends. I thought I'd leave a comment though and let you know that some random stranger has just slapped you on their friend's list. I will not be insulted if you don't add me back right away, I can completely understand wanting to know whose life you are reading and who is reading your life, but as a warning, I only keep people on for about two to three weeks before removing them if not been added back. It's not a vanity thing so much as that I just don't want to invest my time and tears into someone who isn't willing to invest the same amount back. I'm sure you understand. The reason I only have a few entries is because I just switched journals due to many reasons. If you're really curious I can give you the old lj name, but I doubt you really care that much so...yeah. I'm done now.

Heh, and if you've gotten through this book by now without thinking I'm a total nutcase then maybe there's hope for a future lj-ship. *smile*

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Actually, I would be curious to read your old journal, if you don't mind... I'm always interested in meeting new people and finding new reading material. Besides, it is difficult to get a feel for a person with only two entries... ^_^

I'm glad that you introduced yourself, though. And no, I don't think you're a nutcase. Then again, I'm not the most sane person on the planet myself... ^^;;;

[psychicdreamer.livejournal.com]

This is the old journal.

I'll add you under this name too...you can't tell much about me from my public entries only.

Yay for new friends!