This is one of the most interesting things I have ever read regarding the “economy”. This is certainly food for thought.
Originally posted on Orkinpod:
Last week I wrote about whether or not we really needed economic growth, and I claimed that the central problems facing our economy and our society were not about the size, scale, or growth of our economy, but rather about some deeper, undisclosed set of problems. This week I am trying, haphazardly and tentatively, to work through what those problems might look like. Also to predict the future.
One of the things that bothers me about economics—both in its academic guise as a social science discipline and its neoliberal political guise as a quasi-religious faith in which bankers and CEOs serve as high priests—is its general failure to talk about what it’s for. Historians have a whole subfield, historiography, dedicated to how and why we write history. But because the economy is so self-evidently important to the fabric of our society, economists get a kind of pass. Economics is important because the economy is important. But what is the point of the economy, anyway? Is it possible to not have an economy? If the answer is no, than what is it about the concept of an “economy” that makes it an inevitable feature of human society? Why is the discipline of economics structured the way it is? Of course, those questions are scary because they lead to even harder questions about why the economy itself is structured the way it is.