Now, Nobel laureate economist Gary Becker – and I do, by the way, know all the problems with describing anyone as a Nobel laureate in economics – but Gary Becker did have a definition of what he thought economics was as a verb. And I’m going to read it to you. He said:
Economics combines the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, stable preferences, and market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.
Now, that’s a very different definition of what economics might be as a verb from what economics is as a noun, which is where I started this video. Because what it says is that as a verb – economics in action in other words – economics seeks that companies maximise profit.
It requires that individuals maximise utility, although, no one on earth knows what utility is, but because of the way in which Gary Becker defines this, he does mean consumption paid for with money.
And he presumes that everyone is rational, which is what stable preferences mean. And I don’t know about you, but I have had my odd moments of irrationality, and I’m going to put a very high bet on the fact that you have too. Which means that this verb, for economics, does not relate to the world that really exists.
And this verb assumes that markets are efficient and, therefore, that the outcomes that result from them, whether that be massive gross inequality and climate change, are good.
And finally, the implication of this verb when it’s used in this context to describe political economy suggests that everything to do with government is bad because markets are efficient and as a corollary, but not stated, but nonetheless unflinchingly required, is the assumption that everything to do with government must be minimised.
Now, what that means is that in practice – this perception of economics, which comes straight out of the Chicago school by the way – Gary Becker is an heir to Milton Friedman – this definition of economics is in direct conflict with that definition I gave right at the start of this video where I said that economics is about the decisions that we make about the allocation of scarce resources to meet needs and wants. Because there isn’t a decision in this process, there is instead an assumption, which is that markets work, but that is not true because people are not rational. People do not have the perfect information they need to work within marketplaces and markets do price things incorrectly, which is contrary to what Gary Becker presumes, because he thinks there is a price for everything and that markets know it.
Tr actually reading the Becker essay that definition comes from.
He really is a fuckwit, isn’t he?
Noam Chomsky shrugs.
Why is an economics essay like an elephant’s scrotum?
Why is an economics essay like an elephant’s scrotum?
Because it’s never far from a load of shit?
Because it’s a massive load of ballls.
It may not be a verb, but ‘Couple’ is, although most tedious (and less active?) people assume it’s a noun.
Because there’s no such thing?
Elephants do not have a scrotum.
The scrotum exists to keep the sperm cells dormant by holding them at lower-than-body-temperature, otherwise they’d exhaust their energy reserves before they were needed. In elephants, the sperm cells instead are dormant at body temperature, the testicles are internal, and the vagina is warmer than body temperature to wake the sperm up.
So now you know.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/nature/animals/giant-balls-up-scientists-probe-the-mystery-of-elephant-testes/
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
90% of his issues would be solved if he spent some time looking up what the actual definitions of the terms he poo-poos are.
But then he wouldn’t be able to feel like he’s on a righteous crusade. He thinks he’s Don Quixote.
@Bathroom Moose…
Fascinating, many thanks. It’s amazing what information you can pick up from reading an “economics” blog – especially this one! 🙂
Bathroom moose, thanks. Mea culpa.