What Are Academics Up To?

College professors can be so upsetting. (What is their big idea?!!!)

I get really so pissed off. The project is that I want to determine what academics are doing. I am using Google Scholar to do it—this is a good way to get me ticked off! The present article (this Substack post) is concerned with this world, the academic world, that whole thing. This is the disturbing question of what in hell they are up to. What are they doing all day? What can these persons possibly be doing—?

I know! You had thought they were reading books. Ha ha: this joke is on you. I was in college myself. They let me in, so I been there, done that, and I know these people. They do not know how to read books so how would they know how to write them? Also, they do not know how to read the English language; I have verified this.

So one desires the answer to the question of what they are doing. Initially, we can say—they after career and money. (Of course they are. What do you think economics is? It is the study of what people “do.” I am writing about economics on my brilliant and obscure ECONO posts right here at this local web locale.) (Yes, Substack, obviously!)

It’s good writing, but anyway, there are theories. There is a whole theory about how persons chase after career and money. You can look to the bad side or the good side. To the good: The theory of economics is concerned with how and why some persons make money. I didn’t say all persons, I say: some. Not Buddhist monks for example. So economics is about how some people make money. (The bad side is nobody except myself has noticed the simple fact that it is some rather than all.) In the university (also in the culture) the study of how or why persons work and earn (or “make” money) is Economics. But there is the problem that they do not know the theories very well, by which I mean they do not know how to theorize in general. They do not study where the theories come from or what is at the basis of it. (The fact that the theory is found stamped into a textbook is not a “proof.” Gee.) They can execute the math, and ape the reasoning, but having knowledge of what is at the foundation, is a thing requiring creativity and curiosity. They do not know the foundational aspect. Where does a theory come from, what does it stand on? They have not mastered the logic of it. (If you want to Google “economic theory” you can see how far off they are. Then one may get some idea of how little these persons know about theory.)

Now, yes, I can get cynical. I could be overstating. Eventually I did come to understand that not all of them are totally stupid. Some see into it. Some have an idea of the problem. The problem is: what does theory stand on? You can’t just start pontificating on economics out of nowhere. There are 15,000 career “economists” and most of them do not know this. Since some have more sense, let me say that I will find someone who knows there is a “problem,” an issue here. They understand that there needs to be a basis. They can see that one needs to have some ideas to start from and that one needs to evaluate that theoretical basis—make sure it is sound. Only if this process is going on can I follow what they say. Otherwise there is nothing to follow. There are cases when there is a book. In some cases there is a possibility to get the individual’s book. So then one may study it. But, even so, everything I see always seems to me to be pretty weak. Am I being hyper-critical? Okay, I am just a bum; but, to me, I still do not think they have demonstrated a great enough generalization. (Caveat: John Kenneth Galbraith is one of the best; go read that one, then.)

But I think I can generalize to say that persons are not that interested in economics. Who cares about this? They want money; I know that. By “Economics,” I mean here economic theory and application of ideas. This is weak. I designate ideas about economics (as opposed to working) by the special symbol: ECONO. If they were looking for general principles by which to know about matter of economics -what it is, and what it includes or does not include -they would need to be very independent; there is no coherent body of knowledge. Economics theories are conventional and mundane. And then there are the related fields. Yes, I checked out “philosophy of economics.” What a joke that was. Try “sociology,” though and things get better. I guess maybe it kind of depends whether you are an optimist or not. And right now I am in a cynical mood. (I mean, hey—Galbraith!)

If such persons really did study in this basic way I am talking about, or a way that revealed what economics is (that is to say, if their “theoretical” economics reflected “real” economics) what that might amount to is the formal study of how persons persons try to have careers and jobs, or how they try to earn money. But that’s out. They are not studying that process. That would mean studying the process by which they themselves live and work. They, too exist within a capitalistic society. They would be studying themselves.

That’s what I wanted to study when I enrolled in a university graduate level “Economics” program. I wanted to study how people live and work, within an economic system. It would be humanity studying itself. Humanity does not like to do that? Why? It is impossible to find it, but as I have suggested, sociology is a better place to look than economics. I never got too far in college economics.

At this point (in time) it is apparent that similar problem to those of academic economics (ECONO) have now been extended to everybody. At this time, economics of the situation is warped. The problem exists not only in some obscure department of economic theory but in application. Universities are nothing but big earners and big spenders, like any other enterprise. This is part of the problem and we have reached a new milestone in the degeneration of human culture. But, getting back to the theme here, what is going on in academia in general?

They are building a career in isolation from society. Getting cut off from society is extremely dangerous. They will end up having a secular power center—a vulgar “priesthood.” I got off into economics (ECONO, esp.) but I am talking about all of academia. Think of all the separate power centers: law, medicine, academia, government. If each of them are isolated, they are going to compete for power like warlords in Afghanistan. Or trying to get political influence. If they can. I rather doubt it. Academia is a weak candidate for power.

What could be done instead? Instead, we should make an attempt on a fundamental level to really try to understand the transition that occurred in history from the feudalism and aristocratic/serf societies that still existed in the 18th century as they became economics-based societies in the 19th and 20th centuries. This sort of work similar to what was begun by Quesnay (whom people are at a loss to understand—what else is new? ~but somebody today is hopefully finally figuring him out) and then done in a different manner by the great Adam Smith. Now, what about Smith? He pointed out, in a long book, that individuals who are looking mostly after their own well-being or their own reward, could drive indirectly drive the creation of more wealth, and so get England a wealthier “Nation.” (Wealth of Nations, get it?) We do not usually get the full title but Smith called it was an “inquiry into the wealth of nations.”

This was apparently all humanity could handle until the time of Alfred Marshall. Things kind of go down after that. Things immediately went downhill after that — for the educated study of economics. We ain’t that smart.

So, my conclusion in this piece has to be that actually economics is important, also for understanding what academics and others are up to.

then we ought to create a better study field for the study of economics

(NOTE: send this to Prof. Boldizzoni)