The American Kapital - Part 0
Now, I will get out of the way the fact that I am no economist, I do not have a degree in it, I have never worked in any capacity as an economist. I just happen to have a deep distaste for the current American field of it, and believe that my thoughts on it have some merit (I feel this should be intro for every paper on anything).
This distaste comes from the inadequacy of the American educational system to fully teach the field’s breadth:
Economics
a: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services
b: economic theory, principles, or practices
Meriam-Webster Online
Now one may wonder: “How the heck doesn’t my teacher/professor use this definition? Mr. Warbler, is doing just a dandy job teaching me how supply and demand work.”
Although this is probably true (although Mr. Warbler despite his cool name is a purely hypothetical character unfortunately), that is exactly what is wrong: American economic academia is chiefly concerned with the functionings and dysfunctionings of American capitalism, (and probably for good reason).
The University of Missouri for example puts it quite bluntly when describing that Economics is the study of Choice:
Three features distinguish the economic approach to choice from the approaches taken in other social sciences:
1. Economists give special emphasis to the role of opportunity costs in their analysis of choices.
2. Economists assume that individuals make choices that seek to maximize the value of some objective, and that they define their objectives in terms of their own self-interest.
3. Individuals maximize by deciding whether to do a little more or a little less of something. Economists argue that individuals pay attention to the consequences of small changes in the levels of the activities they pursue.
Now, this is not necessarily an utilitarian approach to the pedagogy as the marketable skills of a career economist are chiefly concerned with the functioning’s or dysfunctionings of capitalism. Yet this big assumption means that the way this field is taught is detrimental to its status as an academic field which is chiefly concerned with truth-finding on ideal ways that resources can be distributed.
This narrowing of economic education primarily limits the education of the field to the breadth of indicators, theories, indices (always wanted to use this word), and old European men’s ideas of how economics “absolutely is” that one “must” learn in order to try to make some sense of the American economic system.
However, as this publication will attempt to point out by reducing some theories to their building blocks (while maybe tactically nuking some building blocks), and hopefully answering some common questions, many of these theories, indices, and old-white men have made some HUGE assumptions or misestimations that have very real consequences for Americans (whose benefits, Social Security, taxes, etc. are often determined based on the above).
Some of these assumptions and misestimations are intentionally misleading or politically motivated I am sure, but I like to believe that most are done in good faith, but based on flawed theory which is then creates the basis for more crappy assumptions. Frankly though I am not one to tell folks which is which (as I am not a mind-reading time-traveller), I will just try to point folks to sources that claim such designations.
Given these are large as heck claims, I will do my best to back up my analysis with data, logic, and sources for the information I find, but I (as any human being) am not perfect, and may mess up. If I do please point it out, and we will either have an incredibly intense internet debate in our respective pajamas, I will see it and forget to respond, or you will be absolutely right and I am wrong and will credit you in my edits.
I will do my best to address these issues the best I can.
Thank you for taking time out of your day to read this.
