![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
piasharnWhen 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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-16 02:01 pm (UTC)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. >_
no subject
Date: 2003-10-17 05:22 pm (UTC)