Economic History

By -
"to tear economic history out of its context and to study it by itself as if the economic activities of the epoch were something separate or separable from its other activities, or as if economic institutions had a history of their own, is to make it unintelligible or else to reduce it to propaganda in favor of the dubious dogma of the materialist interpretation of history." -- T.M Knox, "The Study of Economic Activity," Philosophy, 1936

Comments

  1. The Arthurian7:02 PM

    It's neat that you read old stuff. "The Study of Economic Activity" sounds most interesting.

    I don't know what "institutions" are. But economics is the study of monetary balances and changes in monetary balances. As such, they are inseparable from other activities, and are the driving force behind them: Money makes the world go 'round.

    Economic activity in every epoch empowers society, shapes culture, and drives the cycle of civilization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah4:07 AM

      There is nothing for economics to study in a society with barter?!

      "Economic activity in every epoch empowers society, shapes culture, and drives the cycle of civilization."

      No. Sheer assertion, unbacked by any facts.

      Delete
    2. The Arthurian5:32 AM

      > No. Sheer assertion, unbacked by any facts.

      I thought you might say something like that. See, I saved myself the trouble of presenting facts, and you rejected my thought anyway.

      It is disappointing that you reject such things. They are offered not as "sheer assertion" but as devices for opening minds.

      I do a lot of what should be called impressionist economics.

      Delete
    3. gcallah6:07 AM

      What do you mean "anyway"? You failed to present any evidence for your view, and yet I rejected it "anyway"?!

      Delete
    4. The Arthurian7:05 PM

      I hate it when I respond too quickly. It's fun at the moment. But all day today I spent worrying that I missed a key point or that i was in some other way stupid. (I'm pretty good at that.)

      But I stand by my "anyway". Every once in a while I eke out a sentence that strikes me as outstandingly interesting. I think my last sentence in the first of these comments is one of those.

      When that happens, I hope that people who know more than I know will be motivated by my brevity to fill in a few blanks for themselves -- and for me. If it is interesting enough, they will.

      Anyway: I don't think that the lack of an explanation is a good reason to reject an idea that has promise.
      (If you think it has no promise, that's fine.)

      Delete
    5. gcallah7:41 PM

      Well, no, I think it has been quite definitely refuted in fact.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more