When economics is stripped of politics, it becomes a convenient alibi for inequality. It allows wealth to accumulate unchallenged and poverty to be dismissed as individual failure. It turns questions about justice, security, and dignity based on real-life experience into technical debates about productivity and growth.
In other words, the depoliticisation of economics is itself a political act, and one designed to preserve the privileges of those who already hold economic power.
Economics ends up saying things which I do not want said. Therefore I’ll call it politics so that I can carry on being wrong.
All things being equal, and I realise they are not because very rich people buy politicians, what is wrong with inequality?
My neighbour has a BMW and I have a Dacia – should I put the windows through on their car to make us more equal?
If his wife is a horny MILF, should we all get a go if ours isn’t as hot?
It’s an interesting post, the late Lord Bauer (or the anti – Murphy) coined the phrase ‘the politicisation of economic life’ and it’s what a collectivist like Murphy thrives on. In that sense he’s rather less exercised about the consequences of ‘preserving the privileges of economic power’ than making sure he and those like him are the primary beneficiaries of such economic power.
Have you seen his post ‘The working day’? Another proof of Proverbs 4:16…
Part of his working in day involves walking around Ely dictating into his iPhone -an escaped lunatic screaming fascist while walking around town – someone lock him up.
I noticed that not one part of his working day involves reading or research – which explains what we already knew – his output is based solely on the voices in his head
If the depoliticisation of economics is itself a political act, then economics cannot be depoliticised. And if economics cannot be depoliticised, then all economics is always ideological. But economics is not always ideological because it contains unideological empirical truths – though, as (IIRC)Joan Robinson argued 60+ years ago, all economic theories contain elements of ideology. For Spud, however, what he believes is economics must be tailored to his over-arching ideology. Plonker!
Political Economy is a science softer even than Economics but nonetheless a valid field of study.
What economic advice will be listened to depends on party political interests. So if you want to grift as an economic advisor choose your politics wisely. Not saying Spud ever has.
He thinks economies run by the politburo are not political.
Understand that communists are NOT interested in helping the poor. Their goal is to destroy the privileges of those who hold economic power. [Thx for the quote, dicky Dick.]
Communism is NOT about helping the poor; it’s about destroying the rich. They use the poor for appeals to pity [effective with white women], while they try to turn everyone poor.
Everyone else poor???
Economics ends up saying things which I do not understand, but I do not want said nevertheless.
FTFY
Those who hold economic power gained it democratically through the voting system known as Wallet & Till.