#updating this to say if you’re not from southeast asia and you call this hypocritical in any way ill cleave your ass in half with my tongue

[voideconomics]

Introduction

Hello! I have an economics degree and it makes me sad so this is the place where I will be writing about all the aspects of economic theory that never seem to come up in general conversation.

Part of my reason for creating this blog is that in my experience, when you’re talking about economics you generally categorized into two camps. What’s generally referred to as “mainstream” or “orthodox” economics is the sort of economics that says if you just trust in a highly specific version of free-market capitalism with no regulations except maybe something to keep inflation down, based primarily off the one page in The Wealth of Nations where the term “invisible hand” comes up. The other main camp is a sort of generic “socialism” which seems to generally consist of the content of Volume I of Das Kapital and some redistributionist policies along with a lot more regulations than the orthodoxy would see in their worst nightmares.

The problem is that this is a false dichotomy. There are so many other theoretical frameworks that people can use besides these two. My big problem with both the mainstream and the “popular opposition” is that they’re both rooted in what I’ve been calling “economics mission creep.” I feel this phrase best reflects how in popular discussion people treat economics as a science as hard as physics or chemistry. Phrases like “the freer the markets, the freer the people” or “base-superstructure theory” seem to indicate that the economic mode of production and distribution in society is settled and dictates more or less everything else. While that’s a bit of an oversimplification, I believe it reflects a very real trend in economics where all assumptions of the popular theories are based off a sort of eurocentric, materialist set of assumptions where the material conditions of society can be viewed as the result as a result of definite, objective social inputs that then dictate the rest of society. Economics is a social science as much as sociology, anthropology, and political science, and none of them are treated with the same reverence as economics.

This is a problem because nowhere else do you see such assumptions that one thinker figured out the entire discipline. Whether it be Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or anyone else the underlying assumption seems to be that one guy figured it out and the most other thinkers are doing is just updating their work to fit a modern context. I feel it’s completely absurd to treat any theorist as 100% correct, or even as mostly correct, especially as economic, social, and political conditions change over time. Individual theories should be applied in the conditions where they make the most sense and based on an individual interpretation of events, like any other discipline.

My goal here isn’t to persuade anyone to adhere to a specific heterodox theory, that would be hypocritical. My goal is instead to just try to talk about a more diverse variety of economists in the hopes that maybe someone will see something they like and want to look into more. Also a secondary goal is to get literally anyone interested in economics because as it stands the discipline is overwhelmingly white, middle to upper class, male, and straight. This is a problem.

Finally, I want to define some terms how I will use them, because a lot of these are pretty controversial. Other people will have different definitions.

Capitalism- any system of production where capital as a factor of production is controlled by a social class distinct from labor.

Socialism- any system where factors of production are distributed without regards to class. This is an extremely vague word outside mainstream economic discourse where anything from hyper-centralized social planning to the hyper-libertarian “Hayekian Socialism” could be considered socialist without a modifier

Market/market economy- distribution and production is decentralized and based on individual choice. Not the same thing as capitalism

Command/command economy- distribution and production are controlled by a central governing mechanism. Not the same thing as socialism

Traditional economy- an economy that values traditional industries and practices over innovation. A modern example would be attempts to prop up oil and coal even though those industries profitability is tanking.

Dynamic economy- an economy where innovation is valued more than tradition. Most of Southeast Asia especially during the “economic miracle” years would fall into this category.

Hopefully this is of use to someone. If not, it will at least be therapeutic for me to scream into nothingness. Thanks for reading!

#Marx #economics #adam smith #heterodoxy #free market #capitalism #socialism