tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8775049510425272133..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Economics: Wealth Without MoneyAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89300521062611007712018-01-20T12:15:26.089-07:002018-01-20T12:15:26.089-07:00"In fact, you can take the criticism further ..."In fact, you can take the criticism further and report that I violated one of my own cardinal rules - the rule against using collective (tribal) terms in criticism. Your criticism reminds me of why such a rule is a good idea - and why it should not be broken."<br /><br />That was my original thought!<br /><br />However I thought it better to analyse the specific problem with your term "economists" rather than just state the general point.<br /><br />The term I use is "MediaMacro", these are the people you are referring to in your comment - those many pundits, reporters and politicians etc. who have quite a distorted view which oversimplifies and misrepresents, in different ways, both mainstream and heterodox macroeconomics and economists.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-37538987148982081202018-01-17T06:25:10.754-07:002018-01-17T06:25:10.754-07:00This is a sound criticism.
In fact, you can take ...This is a sound criticism.<br /><br />In fact, you can take the criticism further and report that I violated one of my own cardinal rules - the rule against using collective (tribal) terms in criticism. Your criticism reminds me of why such a rule is a good idea - and why it should not be broken.<br /><br />The proper object of this criticism should have been stated as a public attitude - built into certain newscasts and public conversation, and in particular reports about the economy - that conveys the attitude that all wealth is to be measured in terms of "that which you have that you can turn into money."<br /><br />When political activists write about "the top 1%" or complain about the "wealth inequality", these complaints are often presented in terms that understand "wealth" to be "that which can be converted into money."<br /><br />When news casters give their reports on the economy, their reporting will quite often understand "wealth" to be "that which can be turned into money."<br /><br />And my point is that this is a poor definition of wealth - and one is well advised not to internalize these claims. One should not fall into the trap of thinking that one person is better off than another - or, even, better than another - based on a measure of "that which can be turned into money."<br /><br />And each of us could get by a little better in life if we focused less on "that which can be turned into money" - cultivating desires and interests that do not take money to fulfill.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73434383388785666242018-01-17T02:11:18.197-07:002018-01-17T02:11:18.197-07:00It would be helpful if you could point out which e...It would be helpful if you could point out which economists make such an argument that you are criticising. You are talking in generalities but, at first glance, i cant think of any economists who make such an argument. <br /><br />The mainstream - new consensus, new Keynesian - the recent mainstream neoclassical synthesis, neoKeynesions - all argue that money is a veil over the real exchange economy, that this is really a barter economy without money.<br /><br />The Post-Keynesians all reject this and argue for a monetary production economy where money is no a veil but endogenous, we have both a monetary and real economy. <br /><br />The latter still does not lead to your criticism but the former is dominant in most circles and is the most likely target for your criticisms, which make no sense. <br /><br />So who specifically are you addressing? Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.com