Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Cutlass and Ionmattu (sorry I butchered that :/) just had a discussion in which Cutlass divided politics and economics, saying one is about making decisions and the other is about informing them. Brotha Io didn't agree with the distinction but he honorably left it alone for the thread.
Which brings me to my thread. Political economy.
What is political economy? It is a discipline that is separate from economics. It is separate from politics. It is separate from history. It is largely philosophy.
The discipline was in fact originally called "moral philosophy."
"Economics" is a discipline that serves to validate political economy. There are different "political economies" that each engender different schools of economics. Austrian economics is one political economy. Marxism is another. Mainstream economics is another.
You could argue that the Austrian school and the Chicago school are two very different brands of economics, but they are the same political economy. They are predicated on a transcendental theory of value in which value is the agreement of people. Classical economics like Adam Smith and Karl Marx have another political economy, predicated on the philosophy that value is the "labor-added"--that value is more physically based. There are many others.
Some political economies consider individuals to be the agents of action and decision. Others believe that the system as a whole is the agent. So neoclassical economics would be the former, but "world-systems analysis" would be the latter.
Some political economy believes that you cannot have a unified theory but instead you should make specific decisions based on history and accounting. The German Historical School makes this claim. Austrian economics for example came from trying to be the opposite (despite its reputation today, Austrian economics is entirely trying to be scientific and mathematical).
Political economy is the holistic study of human interaction and of society through a lens of agency, trade, decisions, consequences, actions-reactions, etc. How politics fit in can be part of it--politicians make economic decisions. How society fits in can be a part of it--culture and society effect values that create "value". But they don't have to be. Different theories argue different things. Different political economies result in completely different theories of economics.
So what's the point of this thread?
We make assumptions based on our logical understanding of things. But our logical understanding of things is based on premises we take for granted. The idea of supply and demand is pretty obvious--until you realize that to get there we had 200 years of debate and revision.
All economics is based on moral philosophies. Utility is not "real", but we use it in our discussion because its a premise we've chosen to accept. Same goes for things like freedom. Or value. Or any transcendental concept.
We take for granted what was recent philosophy. We build math on what started as recent philosophy. We reject some of that philosophy for others, and consider it common sense when it is anything but. There is a lot of valid alternative arguments to what we know. We discuss and think of our economy in the confines of an academic box--a very good one--but there are other boxes and they are good too.
In high school and want to study political economy in college? You have a few ways. Schools that have the major, awesome! (beware "international political economy" though, that can be different). Some geography departments also teach political economy. Keep an eye out for "Politics, Philosophy, and Economics" that some schools have as that's another name for political economy.
Which brings me to my thread. Political economy.
What is political economy? It is a discipline that is separate from economics. It is separate from politics. It is separate from history. It is largely philosophy.
The discipline was in fact originally called "moral philosophy."
"Economics" is a discipline that serves to validate political economy. There are different "political economies" that each engender different schools of economics. Austrian economics is one political economy. Marxism is another. Mainstream economics is another.
You could argue that the Austrian school and the Chicago school are two very different brands of economics, but they are the same political economy. They are predicated on a transcendental theory of value in which value is the agreement of people. Classical economics like Adam Smith and Karl Marx have another political economy, predicated on the philosophy that value is the "labor-added"--that value is more physically based. There are many others.
Some political economies consider individuals to be the agents of action and decision. Others believe that the system as a whole is the agent. So neoclassical economics would be the former, but "world-systems analysis" would be the latter.
Some political economy believes that you cannot have a unified theory but instead you should make specific decisions based on history and accounting. The German Historical School makes this claim. Austrian economics for example came from trying to be the opposite (despite its reputation today, Austrian economics is entirely trying to be scientific and mathematical).
Political economy is the holistic study of human interaction and of society through a lens of agency, trade, decisions, consequences, actions-reactions, etc. How politics fit in can be part of it--politicians make economic decisions. How society fits in can be a part of it--culture and society effect values that create "value". But they don't have to be. Different theories argue different things. Different political economies result in completely different theories of economics.
So what's the point of this thread?
We make assumptions based on our logical understanding of things. But our logical understanding of things is based on premises we take for granted. The idea of supply and demand is pretty obvious--until you realize that to get there we had 200 years of debate and revision.
All economics is based on moral philosophies. Utility is not "real", but we use it in our discussion because its a premise we've chosen to accept. Same goes for things like freedom. Or value. Or any transcendental concept.
We take for granted what was recent philosophy. We build math on what started as recent philosophy. We reject some of that philosophy for others, and consider it common sense when it is anything but. There is a lot of valid alternative arguments to what we know. We discuss and think of our economy in the confines of an academic box--a very good one--but there are other boxes and they are good too.
In high school and want to study political economy in college? You have a few ways. Schools that have the major, awesome! (beware "international political economy" though, that can be different). Some geography departments also teach political economy. Keep an eye out for "Politics, Philosophy, and Economics" that some schools have as that's another name for political economy.
