It’s my blog birthday! Yes, the big o two! I wonder what that is in human terms? A thousand years? I jest. I could easily go another two or twenty to defend democracy from anti-democratic bad economics in the conservative style. Perhaps I should make a few comments in honor of the august occasion?
Everyone must know by now what I’m about mostly about, right? Neoclassical welfare economics, anti-democratic bad economics in the conservative style (and the related forms of folk economics) loosely based upon it, and the sometimes surprisingly subtle relationships between the two. I cycle endlessly through a small set of issues I’m trying to raise awareness about, saying them in various ways, in case anyone is interested in addressing intellectually stultifying, misleading, bad economics in the conservative style. Few are, of course, but just in case.
Many, or let’s say most, critics of bad economics in the conservative style prefer to talk around it, avoid it, ignore it, but with the indifference or active patronage of many academic economists, it won’t go away if simply left alone. It must be confronted, addressed. When critics do try to directly address bad economics in the conservative style, they quite often miss the mark, in my humble opinion, because they conflate it with neoclassical welfare economics, and then fail to discuss the latter seriously or sympathetically. They tend toward hasty, confused criticisms that although apparently dispositive for themselves and others of like mind are rather easily deflected by those concerned to do so. They fail to appreciate the subtleties, the nuances, the clever rhetoric stratagems and word games involved. Of course, one may also criticize neoclassical welfare economics itself on certain bases, such as its vacuity or its ability to sustain confusion on certain points, but those criticisms will not be identical to those relevant to bad economics in the conservative style.
I sometimes get the complaint I make things too complicated, but honestly I feel I’m just dealing with the complexity that’s there. I’m not really adding anything. It’s just that, like most things, it’s not really as simple as many would like to suppose. Yes, I suppose my commentary sometimes requires some basic knowledge of neoclassical welfare economics. I summarize the relevant bits often enough, but I can’t really present a course on the subject. And how could I address the relationship between it and bad economics in the conservative style without discussing it? Some of my commentary is even more general than that. No prior experience required. But, honestly, if one is in the habit of thinking or talking about what one supposes is orthodox economics, one may want to familiarize oneself with neoclassical welfare economics. Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not suggesting it’s the end all and be all. Far from it. But it’s certainly a good starting point for understanding the issues in bad economics in the conservative style. Correctly perceived, it’s also consistent with many normative views, other economic theories as well, so it’s got that going for it.
I’m not one of those economists with a capital E who wanders hither and yon across all of mathematics, blithely ignoring the practical consequences of bad economics in the conservative style. I’m a practical man, interested in people and the affairs of this world. They don’t call me the outsider, the old man of the mountain paths, the hobo at the gate, because of my shabby clothes, my weathered visage, my diffident mien. They call me that because I’m a simple man and I follow a simple path, the Path of Philosophy, wherever it leads.
I’m always interested to hear from fellow travelers. Helps me think of new ways to say old things. I haven’t set up this blog to facilitate that type of interaction, but you know I’m on Twitter as well, and my blog posts are coordinated with Wednesday “tweet storms” that go over the same material, often word for word. Drop me a response sometime. Or just find a random tweet and respond with some other issue you’re concerned about, doesn’t matter. I don’t bite. I mute, occasionally, if bothered, and I suppose further interaction pointless. I block, rarely, because who has time for that? I don’t mind a modicum of snark. Par for the course these days. Mixing the pot, keeping it spicy. We don’t have to always be so formal. I’m not. But there has to be some point, some development. Listening to someone spout rubbish all day long is exhausting. I just can’t do it. Sometimes I have things on my mind. Need a little space and quiet time.
You should help me fight ubiquitous bad economics in the conservative style by understanding it, neoclassical welfare economics, and how the two relate. Help me fight also the monstrous, dumbed down offspring of bad economics in the conservative style. Stand up for democracy.
