The neo-Classical Paradigm

Let's make some needed adjustments

[note]: this revisits some of the arguments in my earlier piece on this, from 07-04.

Neo-classical (alt: neoclassical) economics (economics study: ECONO). Let us say that it is a completely absurd, wrong way for a person to be scholarly. It is the wrong way of investigating the designated topic, in this case matters of economics. On the plain common sense level there is the suggestion that we get something only if we work for it, but here we could say, also, pays for it, which brings in ambiguity. A theory of economics would ideally be about one’s society or one given group of persons work out those permissions. It is a matter of how one gets permits to do things. There is no such thing as a culture that is merely “free” and that’s the end of it. One may also look at the plain common sense level, the simple idea that one needs to do the work if one wants to see the result (but the result is often simply wages).

Well, let’s go for the example now: Eeeff you worked for eight hours, and you contract with the employer as a free person, or an equal member of society, and furthermore the contract says $80 for ten hours, then you have an understandable, justifiable expectation to gain but that much, and receive the monies owed. Since there are a lot of terrible employers out there, it is not always true. However I am willing to grant the presumption of such a situation, as I have “other fish to fry.” Let us give one more example, though. One is paid, for one’s work, so if go to a street vendor to buy lunch, from a person selling food in the streets, there are similar expectations — that this person who works, who prepares and peddles food, has the right to get paid. There is a standardized price, and the man has every right to get his money. We see that there is the sense of propriety, of a fair exchange. One side pays, so money is always involved. In addition, there is the item in the exchange. This is how we get our lunch.

Millions of persons go to work every day and participate in such an economic system but it is astonishing to think that the intellectual support for it is given only through a set of ideas that is wrong. There is an academically-backed system, a system of ideas and theories that is in some way attempting to prop it all up. And what is being propped up? That is to say, the whole capitalistic society — a way of life. One may also glimpse here the enormous difference between common sense and theory. There is common-sense but in addition to that there is this more sophisticated justification of everything that happens in the world, reduced to economics.

Let us back off from wasting time with the wrong theory. Why bother with it? I am sick of looking this mess, I did so for fifteen years, and it is wrong. What we need to do is discern what may correct the twisted timbers of neoclassical wreckage. So, time for the next question. Let us ask in general: Where do we get the system of economics? Where did this kind of society come from in the first place?

Well, the common sense version is that it’s because of just folks buying things. And it all somehow goes around, comes back, and we buy again, or we work more, and it all keeps on rolling along (well, cross your fingers). It is not just barely working, not by far. Participating system-members get more and more more money (more correctly put, they “have an income”) through not only working in some manner, but also investing, owning a rental property, etc. And one may obtain money by doing what they call “borrowing” it. That way, you get the money with merely the promise to pay it back. The phenomenon of “taking out a loan” strikes me as strange, somehow. But the result (again, keep your fingers crossed) is commerce keeps rolling along — like a train. This train ain’t gonna stop, it has got all those people lining up to buy, after all. Buy, buy, buy. But are those kinds of decisions what explains all of it? Does the mere idea of desiring an item and noting its price explain in any satisfactory way what keeps the sky above, or what keeps the system of economics going? No, that is not possible. Is the ongoing existence of human life because we are buying stuff? But this the implication of the modern Economics curriculum. I do not see anyone really looking into this. This sort of Economics explanation has replaced all other systems of social thought in protestant America (Catholics do have something: a specific “social teaching”). Neoclassical economics ties you completely into this view because common sense tells one “you have to work,” but these more intellectual or theoretical way of seeing it do not correspond. Instead they have the “deal,” the “transaction,” and it looks like these deals are happening all over. This amounts to saying, “yes, this [buying things for money] is what is happening.” Everything is reduced to transaction and abstraction. Common-sense vs. theory.

Certainly no one in any serious position, who takes life seriously, believes it — no, not today. The neoclassical thought system for economics reached a heyday level in the nineties, which was when an intellectually lazy or incompetent Economics professors could have what he would call a “great” career. This was before the decline of the neoclassical occurred in the mid-nineties (I am guessing). Until then — Oh what a lord and master one person could be, by forcefully and stridently telling classes full of college kids how the world works. Well that is one way to get money or make a living I suppose. Not a common sense one, I don’t suppose so.

Really. Just a totally silly bunch of mathematics. I studied it, but it didn’t and it doesn’t make sense and I suppose they do not see what I did and are still unable to figure this out! There may be times, when most persons think something makes sense when in fact it does not. Even if they do not teach it as truth, the way they did for fifty or more years, I think, of course, they are still unable to see anything about what is really rather obvious to me. They do not. Still, as far as I know. The neoclassical just kind of shrank away and slipped away into the shadows. Like it was embarrassed or sumthin’.

---

And today what we are we seeing in cultural life? Another example of this tendency to have ideological views. It is happening big time. It is on both: Right and Left. On one side is a broad, often seemingly “educated” or degreed professional cohort that has arrogated positions of authority in various institutions. But it is ideological, so thinking things through is no longer what the society values. All buy in. Now everyone (this applies, again, to your L or your R side) buy into the one standard way their group sees it. You can even use A.I., to explain your ideology as I am sure A.I. does great at this sort of thinking. So they seem quite happy about this development. Thinking is the one main thing we will not be found doing. Especially the creative kind. They do love to hear the latest idea, on their side, of course (it can be ‘Woke’ or “Super American Patriot”). So the variety is a variety of two, an aspect of variety that depends on which side you are on. Not, I will add one more time, independent creative thought. Whatever that is, right? That is one thing you will not see. The faux left who are nuts — ? ~ these people are all in agreement that you should get spiked. With a needle.

I don’t call it a ‘jab,’ I call it a sword sticking in your flesh but I am one of the last independent thinkers so that is the kind of thing I do. They are not getting jabbed due to their independent, creative thinking. It is because “these vaccines are good,” and if you don’t submit to forced “vaccination” (if that is what it is; I just know it is a needle going into you and there is some substance that gets injected and they lie about everything, like “it stays in the muscle”). If you do not think “vaccines are good, it is that you are bad. You did not go along. This is the professionals, who today seem to have this allegedly “Leftist” flavor somehow. These persons, who are excessively ideological or see themselves in some sort of new leftist-tinged way, are very loud in their view, which is: you did not go along. Why is this the one thing these dummies do notice? You did not obey. That’s all that bothers them. When all your behaviors are basically ideological, that is what you would notice. I guess so. According to this narrow-minded thinking, which is to say according to the ideology of the moment: you are endangering the whole population. But remember, it is an ideological message, not the result of the human capacity for reason. How do they know that those persons are endangering others—including, some critics point out “grandma”—? I have no idea how know this. But it is very simplisitc. Let’s go through the drill, comrades: it does have something to do with the sickness-causing virus. You know, the one we call COVID-19. You didn’t get vaccinated. The vaccine is linked to the virus. It follows, you are causing people to get sick from the virus. That is all it takes, a few connections of the most simple nature. How is this any different from a Southern racist saying: all them niggers…..? How is this the complexity of analysis at the level these so-called professionals or doctors or graduate level academics practice?

And now it’s about getting rid of those ideologically labeled vaccine resisters. (I do not see anything ideological about the term “vaccine resister,” however it is being used ideologically. Those who use the term are sometimes there small minds, and it is those small minds that we are discussing, right?) They believe that as long as they could get rid of the vaccine resisters everything would be solved. Simply solution. The virus now had to go away. This is intellectual discourse on the Salem witch-trial level. It would go away but these vaccine resisters are stopping that from happening. Like the witch’s test, right? Where you throw a woman into a pool of water. Witches float; don’t know about the others. They could keep finding reasons to believe this. It could last years.

Yep. Not unlike the case of neoclassical economics Not to mention two new connections that I seem to have come up with, the lynchings in the South and the witch trials in Salem.

So what does all the preceding expertly-written stuff really mean? It signifies that we have to make some adjustments to our understanding of economics. And, as well, to our understanding of epidemiology and pandemic. The point is to make sense whether common sense or the academic shit (the highly strange theories).

However, we also should note that Economics theory and COVID theory can be distinguished; they are different. In one case there is something physical, right there in front of one. People are dying. So, if there is actual, physical evidence of people dying, and it is not just persons agreeing to accept capitalism for the given moment, I think it will get resolved more quickly. One would hope so. Those in charge in the USA will look more and more absurd. What else will happen?

I do not want to be inexact about what I am saying with regards to the similarities of the neoclassical economics era from 1920-1990 and the current era, which looks to be an era of ideology and tries at taking about one’s liberties such as the right to think, make decisions, or get information.

In each era, elites display a strong tendency to promulgate absurdly wrong ideas.

Thus the mainstream intellectual basis of society has to endure some adjustments: freedom (liberty) does not depend on people running businesses and taking other persons’ money nor does it depend on whether you decide to eat in or eat out. Or any other buying decision.

The economy is not a wind-up clock running by rules of calculus where inputs are “demand and supply.” In other words, it is an error to say customers show up and “demand” and businesses or individuals show up to happily compete. It is not a complete explanation, and it has numerous flaws. So what does one do with that?

All that—? ~ throw it out